Hybrid Electric and Battery Electric Vehicles

Technology, C

Hybrid Electric and Battery Vehicles

Sustainable Energy Ireland
Glasnevin
Dublin 9
Ireland

t
f
e
w

+ 353 1 836 9080
+ 353 1 837 2848
info@sei.ie
www.sei.ie

A study on the costs and benefits of hybrid electric and battery
electric vehicles in Ireland
2007 Edition, Version 1

November 2007

4.3 Battery charging 28 2.3.3 Hybrid Electric Vehicles 18 2.4 Emissions performance 20 2.1 3.2.1 Overview 38 3.5 Predicted CO2 emissions from road transport 51 .3 Introduction 50 3.3 Vehicle availability 20 2.2.2.7 Capital and operating costs 17 2. 50 3.2 Fuel life-cycle 42 3.2.1 2 Technical Information 5 7 2.3.4.4 Disposal 48 3.3 Battery types 8 2.2.4.2 Technology details 8 2.6 Emissions performance 11 2.2.4.1 Introduction 27 2.4 3 Scope of this report 5 Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) 27 2.4 Fleet operation statistics.Table of contents 1 Introduction 1.5 Capital and operating costs 24 2.2 Technology details 27 2.1 Introduction 18 2.5 Vehicle availability 10 2.1 Introduction 7 2.3.2.2.2 Technology details 19 2.4.2.4.4 Vehicle Energy Efficiency Performance 10 2.2.3.1 3.1.1 Introduction 7 2.5 Emissions performance 28 2.2 Battery Electric Vehicles 7 2.2 Introduction Lifecycle analysis definition Lifecycle emissions – case studies 35 35 37 37 3.2.3 Materials 46 3.3.4 Vehicle availability 28 2.6 Capital and operating costs 33 Life cycle analysis 3.

7 4 5 52 Summary of findings Battery charging and patterns of energy use 55 56 4.3 Average time away from base 57 4.4 Do vehicles operate to predictable routes? 57 4.6.1 Range driven from base: 57 4.1.3.1 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and the Social Cost of Carbon: 67 5.1 In-Use Emissions .1 Depreciation 65 5.3 Vehicle Production and Recycling and Disposal 60 5.2 Air quality pollutants 59 5.1 Ranking of options based on CO2 emission reductions 52 3.3.2 Ranking of options based on benefit to cost ratio 53 3.3.6 Pollutant Damage Costs 67 5.1 Technology options available for battery recharging 56 4.1.3.Fuel Cycle 60 5.5 Non-Fuel Running Costs 66 5.2 In-Use Emissions .4 Capital Costs 64 5.6 Ranking of owner and usage categories in terms of potential emissions and economic benefits 3.2 Charging regime and costs 56 4.3.5 Are vehicles used during the day or night? 58 Data Sources and Assumptions 5.7 Vehicle use categories Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Battery charge – discharge cycle efficiencies Emissions data Cost of ownership data Glossary of terms 68 .6.3 Patterns of energy usage data 57 4.1 CO2 59 5.6.4.2 Air Quality (AQ) Externalities 67 5.Tailpipe 59 59 5.3.6.2 Average daily mileage 57 4.

it has been decided that action is required to reduce emissions from this sector if Ireland is to meet its Kyoto commitment. emissions and costs (capital. A review of the primary potential owner groups and uses for HEVs.1 Scope of this report This report. This information is presented in Section 2. 1. This work consists of a “Cost of ownership calculator” which provides the energy efficiency. However. vans. Section 4 reviews and identifies the main potential candidate vehicle owner groups and uses (cars. This report provides more detailed information on technical developments for passenger cars. In particular. minibuses and full sized public transport buses. which are available for vehicle battery charging and presents typical patterns of energy use data and lastly. The National Climate Change Strategy for Ireland identified transport as a fast growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Ireland has agreed to limit its national carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions during the period 2008 – 2012 to a maximum of 13% above 1990 levels. However. and on battery systems. report 1. brings together the following pieces of research: • • • • • • A technical report – a detailed state of the art review of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). Due to the predicted continuing rise in CO2 emissions from road transport. light utility vehicles (or vans). 5 . plugin hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicle (BEV) technology. These options have the advantage of reducing average vehicle energy consumption. minibuses and buses) for HEVs. This document should be read in conjunction with the “Buyer’s guide” and the cost of ownership calculator. Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI) has commissioned AEA Energy & Environment (AEA) and ILTP to undertake this work. Section 6 provides details with regard to the assumptions that have been made when compiling the cost of ownership calculator. PHEVs and BEVs in Ireland. Ireland’s CO2 emissions peaked in 2001 at 31% above 1990 levels. and the associated costs and benefits of HEVs and BEVs in vehicle fleets in Ireland. A review of the life-cycle analyses (LCA) that have been undertaken on the environmental impacts of these vehicle types (manufacture. with a particular focus on battery types. The buyers guide provides an overview of information on HEV. use and disposal). and hence reducing CO2 emissions. Documentation on the data sources and assumptions used in the buyer’s guide and cost of ownership calculator. before these proposals can be taken forward.1 Introduction Under the Kyoto Protocol. Previous life-cycle analyses of road vehicles have shown that the use phase of the vehicle dominates almost all environmental impact categories. A measure that is of potential interest is increasing the use of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and/or battery electric vehicles (BEVs). the construction phase is not insignificant and there are also a number of potential environmental impacts surrounding the disposal phase. an easy to understand “Buyer’s Guide” to these vehicle technologies and this report (Report 1) which presents more detailed information on technical developments in these technologies and assesses the most cost effective and lowest carbon dioxide options. Information on battery charge / discharge efficiencies. further work is required to assess the potential energy and CO2 savings. PHEVs and BEVs and the most cost effective and lowest carbon dioxide emission options. Section 3 summarises a literature and web review of existing LCA studies on road vehicles. PHEV and BEV technologies and concentrates primarily on the costs of ownership of these types of vehicles. A review of vehicle battery charging options and patterns of energy use associated with this. Fleet operation and vehicle use characteristics are considered and a ranking of vehicles in terms of potential emission and economic benefits is presented. running and energy) for HEVs and BEVs by vehicle type on a per km basis. Section 5 identifies the technology options. the life-cycle impacts of HEVs and BEVs in comparison with conventional petrol and diesel vehicles have been examined.

6 . Appendix 4 contains a glossary of the terms used in this report.Appendix 1 contains detailed information on battery charge / discharge cycle efficiencies. Appendix 2 provides detailed emissions data for different vehicle types under alternative usage scenarios and Appendix 3 contains detailed cost of ownership data.

1 Introduction Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are powered by electricity stored in large batteries within the vehicles. Although BEVs produce zero emissions at point of use. These batteries are used to power an electric motor. All of these factors make them ideal for inner city and urban usage. Most new BEVs also use ‘regenerative braking’. and PHEVs technologies for passenger cars. The emphasis was on these vehicle types because of their significant contribution to Ireland’s carbon dioxide emissions This section presents more detailed information on these technologies and further details.1 Introduction The buyers guide provides an overview of BEV. which drives the vehicle. if renewable energy is used then electric cars can offer a much reduced environmental impact over other vehicle technologies. BEVs benefit from the high levels of torque found in electrical motors as well as smooth gearless acceleration and deceleration.2 Technical Information 2. 2. which allows the electric motor to act as a generator in order to re-capture energy that would normally be lost through heat dissipation and frictional losses – this improves energy efficiency and reduces brake wear. minibuses and full sized public transport buses. BEVs have no emissions at point of use and operate in almost complete silence. except for noise from the tyres.2.2 Battery Electric Vehicles 2. the source of the electricity must be taken into account when considering the wider scale environmental benefits. HEV. light utility vehicles (vans). A short summary of the main advantages and disadvantages of BEV technology include: Advantages • Zero emissions at point of use • Torque and smooth response suited to urban driving • Cheap to run • Quieter operation Disadvantages • High capital cost • Generally small in size • Limited range • Limited speed • Slow recharge rate and limited dedicated quick recharge facilities • Emissions can simply be transferred to production sources 7 . This system allows BEVs to operate with zero emissions at their point of use. where applicable on: • • • • • Battery types (Information on battery charge / discharge efficiencies can be found in Appendix1) Vehicle energy efficiency performance Vehicle availability Emissions performance Capital and operating costs Detailed information regarding emissions performance and capital and operating costs is provided in Appendix 2 and 3 of this report.

The principal technology types are described briefly below. no energy is consumed when the vehicle is at a standstill. however.3 providing a summary of their performance characteristics. 8 . which reduce energy consumption. This technology could be used to further improve the regenerative braking system. BEVs also. The central motor type is currently more common as it works on tried and tested principles of car design. usually. For example regenerative braking. This improves the overall efficiency of the car and can significantly improve the range of the vehicle. incorporate other technologies. BEV – Central motor BEV – Hub motors The two types of BEV are illustrated above.2.2 Technology details Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are powered by either a large electric motor connected to a transmission. thus conserving energy further. which allows energy that would otherwise be wasted as heat during braking to be recycled back into the electrical storage system. The energy used to power these motors comes exclusively from battery packs housed within the vehicles that must be charged from an external source of electricity (for smaller vehicles a household socket is a sufficient source). 2. Another example is that because of the nature of electric motors. with Table 2. It is also more suited to larger vehicles in which the motor must be quite powerful. or smaller electric motors housed within the wheel hubs. For example. There are a number of technologies in the pipeline that may improve efficiency even further and increase the viability of electrical motors as a power source.3 Battery types Battery types There are a number of rechargeable battery technologies that have been used or are likely to be used in the future for hybrid and electric vehicles. is more suited to smaller vehicles due to the power requirements of larger vehicles and as such is a less regularly used technology. at the current time. However. can avoid many of the transmission losses experienced in the central motor type but.2. the key difference is the positioning and size of the electric motors. As can be seen the two types are very similar. the requirement to transfer power from the motor to the wheels does involve some losses in efficiency through friction. The hub motor type. super capacitors store energy for a short period of time much more efficiently than a dynamo recharging a battery.2.2.

Compared to lithiumion batteries. high cost. Li-ion polymer This is a similar technology to Li-ion. greater life cycle degradation rate and an ultra-slim design (as little as 1 mm thick).g. in part forced by EU legislation. a light battery which stores a lot of energy).2. with much less significant memory effect. the Tesla Roadster electric car and in Prius conversions to a plug-in hybrid). NiMH batteries can also have 2-3 times the capacity of an equivalent size NiCd.e. energy capacity is lower and self-discharge is higher. Lithium-ion (Li-ion) The relatively modern lithium-ion battery technology has a very high charge density (i. Nickel-Metal-Hydride (NiMH) The Nickel Metal Hydride battery technology is similar to a NiCd battery in design. 9 . is being superseded by Li-ion and NiMH types. so its use (mainly in domestic applications). Nickel Cadmium (NiCd) Nickel Cadmium give the longest cycle life of any currently available battery (over 1. However. but typically has slightly lower charge density.g. offering both a higher energy density. and consumer electronics. there are also significant thermal losses when the battery is not in use.500 cycles) but has low energy density compared to some other battery types.3: Battery Technologies Lead acid (Pb-acid) Lead-acid batteries are the oldest type of rechargeable battery and have a very low energy-to-weight and energy-to-volume ratio. as well as a higher power density making rechargeable molten salt batteries a promising technology for powering electric vehicles. The technology currently has widespread use in consumer electronics (e. However. mobile phones) but has only recently begun to be used in transport applications (e. and limited shelf and cycle life. also known as the Zebra battery. General motors and Toyota are now also moving towards using more Lithium-ion batteries. they can maintain a relatively large power-to-weight ratio and are low cost making them ideal for use in road vehicles. Disadvantages include the high instability (see the glossary (Appendix 4) for further information) of overcharged batteries and if the battery discharges below a certain voltage it may never be able to hold a charge again. These use molten salts as an electrolyte. which places more stringent requirements on the rest of the battery components and can bring problems of thermal management and safety. the potential for overheating.Box 2. the Toyota RAV4-EV all-electric plug-in electric car. Sodium Nickel Chloride (NaNiCl) Sodium Nickel Chloride. the normal operating temperature range is 270–350 oC. Cadmium is also toxic – a hazard to both humans and animals. Applications include hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota Prius. belongs to the class of molten salt batteries. Furthermore. These factors mean that lead acid batteries take up significant amounts of space within vehicles and add significant amounts of weight. Current limitations include volatility. except cadmium is replaced making it less detrimental to the environment.

000 Li-ion Li-ion 200 300 > 3.350 Energy Efficiency 82.350 125 270 1. 2 http://www.000 NaNiCl Sources: LCE (2006)1. Battery electric cars typically use 0.5 kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy per mile5 6. Gaston Maggetto. 2007.5% 72.2 to 0. 1 “Comparison of the Environmental impact of 5 Electric Vehicle Battery technologies using LCA”.4 Vehicle Energy Efficiency Performance The distance that a battery electric vehicle can be driven before it needs recharging depends on the type and number of batteries installed and can range from 30 to 120 miles4. Arnaud De Groof. parks or seafronts.000 polymer 125 300 1.800 Number of cycles of 1 battery pack 500 1. Julien Matheys. Peter Van den Bossche.2. Ebus sell a shuttle size electric bus ideal for use in small towns or locations such as airports.htm#offset 10 . For example. 2.20% The higher the energy density the further the distance that vehicles can travel and therefore a breakthrough in the batteries’ energy to weight ratio could increase the marketability of battery electric vehicles4. However. The reason for the short range that can be driven is due to the energy storage limitations of the types of batteries that are on the market today.5 Vehicle availability BEVs are generally limited to passenger cars and small vans due to the size and weight of batteries required to power the electric motors.2.2.8 kWh per mile and therefore battery electric cars are more energy efficient than conventionally fuelled vehicles.org. This rate depends on a number of factors such as how often the vehicle is used and how much it is charged and discharged. a battery capacity of 20 kWh will be required.mpoweruk. 6 http://www. 2006.5% NiMH 70 140-300 1. Proceedings of the 13th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering. W/kg 180 150 2501. However.0% 90. please see section 2.inel. 2.5% 500% 313% 0% Losses due to Heatin g 7. For a typical conventional petrol vehicle that does 46 miles to the gallon .3.uk/fleet/technology/lowcarbonvehicles/electricvehicles/ 5 Idaho National Laboratory. The vehicle manufacturer will be able to advise how best to look after the battery to extend its life.3: Properties of different types of rechargeable battery Battery Type Pb-acid NiCd Specific Energy (Wh/kg) 40 60 Energy/ Volume (Wh/litre) 60-75 50-150 Power/ Weight.com/ 4 UK Energy Saving Trust: http://www. Joeri Van Mierlo. Battery lifetime should be considered when calculating the cost of ownership as batteries wear out and need to be replaced.buchmann. Therefore for a range of 100 miles at 200-watt hours per mile. As Table 2.ca/ 3 http://www. show improvements in this respect. as well as a heritage style trolley bus for use in historic areas.000 1. Modern lithium based batteries however. For further details regarding battery types. this is often more than sufficient for urban and city centre drivers.0% 175% 313% 2% 1% 92.3 shows rechargeable batteries typically self-discharge more rapidly than disposable alkaline batteries (up to 5% a day depending on temperature and cell chemistry). Nearly half of this energy consumption is due to inefficiencies in charging the batteries. this is equivalent to 0.2. Jean-Marc Timmermans.2.Table 2. Further information on battery characteristics and their efficiency is provided in Appendix 1. W alter Hecq.battery-faq. Batteries in a portable world2. there are some small sized buses in operation that utilise electrical power. but these tend to use their onboard electricity storage for short sections away from external sources such as overhead cables.html Website accessed July 2007. Full size electric vehicle reports at: http://avt.energysavingtrust.com/performance. Sandrine Meyer. Battery FAQ3 Energy Density % of Pb-acid 100% 150% Selfdischarge per 24h 1% 5% 70. W out Van Autenboer. Larger electric buses are also on the market.gov/fsev.

asp Mega MultiTruck II: http://www.modec.Doblo vehicle http://www.maranello4cycle.think. It is worth noting that the graphs should not be compared as they relate to different periods of ownership.uk/megatruck/?gclid=CMe4cT2s40CFQLilAodLXQptg Electric Berlingo: http://www. details of which can be found in Section 3. emissions from a petrol and diesel car are also shown.it/eng/indexing. They are therefore well suited to urban areas where vehicle emissions represent a large proportion of urban air pollutants. For comparison purposes.html For sale in other parts of Europe: • • • Smith Electric Vehicles: http://www.co.html • Micro-Vett .html Other battery electric cars not currently available in Ireland but available in other parts of Europe include: • • • The MEGA City car http://www.com/ 2.2.teslamotors.citroen.6a to 2.6 Emissions performance Battery electric vehicles produce no emissions at their point of use.uk/new5. low and high use scenario.2. The overall emissions performance will depend on the source of energy used to charge the battery.7 for further information).greenmachines.it/english/ydeaing.ca/citroenet/passenger-cars/psa/berlingo/berlingoelectrique.Details regarding the BEVs that are currently on sale are shown below: Passenger cars: Examples of cars for sale in Ireland: • The Reva G-wiz http://www. http://en.micro-vett. However.nicecarcompany.niceccarcompany.co.micro-vett.com/ Th!ink City car.mb.micro-vett. 11 .2.html Buses For sale in Ireland: • Ebus http://www. there are emissions associated with generating the electricity used to power them.uk The Maranello 4cycle http://www.Ydea city car http://www. As with all vehicles. Electricity generated from fossil fuels such as coal will lead to higher carbon dioxide and air quality emissions compared to electricity sourced from renewable sources such as wind or hydroelectric power.it/english/company. Passenger cars Figures 2. The figures shown relate to the emissions arising over the whole ownership period and for the battery electric car are based on the projected electricity grid mix in Ireland. These figures are thought to be typical profiles for Ireland (see Section 6.com/index. whilst battery electric vehicles produce no emissions at point of use.no/ High performance sports car (currently only available in the United States) • Tesla Roadster www. these vehicles will however have emissions associated with their manufacture.ie/ • Micro-Vett .html Micro-Vett: http://www. which will have virtually zero emissions during vehicle operation.smithelectricvehicles.com Vans Examples of vans for sale in Ireland: • • Modec: http://www.co.6c provide estimated CO2 emissions as a result of owning and operating a battery electric car under an average.ebus.

6c: “High use of car” 25.000 Kg CO2 Kg CO2 30.000 0 0 BEV Petrol Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal BEV Petrol Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .Tailpipe Figure 2.6b: “Average use of car” Figure 2.2.000 35.000 15.000 0 BEV Petrol Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .000 5. 12 .Tailpipe In-Use Emissions .2.000 30.000 45.000 40.000 25.000 20.Tailpipe The data behind these graphs and data for air quality pollutants can be found in Appendix 2 and the Cost of Ownership Calculator.000 5.000 25.000 10.Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas Average use 10 10.000 25% Figure 2.000 5.000 20.000 15.000 10.000 15.000 25% High use 5 15.000 10.2.6a: “Low use of car” 35.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .500 25% Low use 15 8.000 Kg CO2 20.

000 80.000 10. low and high use scenario.2.000 25% .000 50.5f provide estimated CO2 emissions to air as a result of owning and operating a battery electric van under an average.000 40% 40.000 0 BEV Petrol Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .000 10.000 20.2.000 50. those emissions arising from a petrol and diesel van are also shown.Tailpipe 13 High use 5 25.000 70.5d: ““Low use” of van 40.000 70.000 50.000 30% Figure 2.5f: “High use” of van 70. The figures shown relate to the emissions arising over the whole ownership period and for the battery electric van are based on the projected electricity grid mix in Ireland.000 Kg CO2 Kg CO2 Figure 2.000 60. It is worth noting that the graphs should not be compared as they relate to different periods of ownership.5d to 2.Vans Figures 2.000 10.000 30.000 30.000 60.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions . Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas Average use 10 14.000 0 0 BEV Petrol Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal BEV Petrol Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .2.000 40.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .2.Tailpipe In-Use Emissions .000 60.000 Kg CO2 Low use 15 9. For comparison purposes.5e: “Average use” of van 80.Tailpipe Figure 2.2.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 20.000 20.000 30.

5i provide estimated emissions to air as a result of owning and operating a battery electric minibus under an average. low and high use scenario.5g to 2. those emissions arising from a diesel minibus are also shown.Minibuses Figures 2.2. It is worth noting that the graphs should not be compared as they relate to different periods of ownership. For comparison purposes. Minibus assumptions: Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas Average use 10 17.2.000 40% High use 5 25.000 40% .000 40% 14 Low use 15 12. The figures shown relate to the emissions arising over the whole ownership period and for the battery electric bus are based on the projected electricity grid mix in Ireland.

000 20.000 10.000 60.000 40.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 70.000 70.000 50.2.Tailpipe Figure 2.5i: ““High use” 60.000 30.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .5h: “Average use” 80.000 30.Tailpipe In-Use Emissions .5g: ““Low use” 40.000 80.000 60.2.Tailpipe 15 .000 Kg CO2 Kg CO2 Figure 2.000 10.000 0 BEV Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .000 Kg CO2 40.000 50.000 20.000 10.000 0 0 BEV Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal BEV Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .000 30.000 20.000 50.Figure 2.2.

those emissions arising from a diesel midi bus are also shown.2.2. The figures shown relate to the emissions arising over the whole ownership period and for the battery electric bus are based on the projected electricity grid mix in Ireland.000 Kg CO2 Kg CO2 400.Tailpipe Figure 2.000 90% Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas Inter-urban 10 50. Midi bus assumptions: Urban 10 30. For comparison purposes.000 400.5j to 2.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 40% Express 10 70. Further details regarding emissions of other pollutants can be found in Appendix 1 and the Cost of Ownership Calculator.000 500.2.000 300.000 100.5j: ““Urban use” of a midibus 700.000 400.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .5l provide estimated emissions to air as a result of owning and operating a battery electric midi bus under urban.000 500.2.000 200.Tailpipe Further information relating to the life-cycle emissions of battery electric vehicles and how this has been estimated can be found in Section 3 and Section 6.000 0 BEV Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .000 300.2.000 600.000 700.000 Kg CO2 500.000 0 0 BEV Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal BEV Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .000 600. 16 . inter-urban and express scenarios.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 300.000 200.000 600.000 10% Figure 2.000 100.Midi bus (a single decker bus in between a minibus and full size bus) Figures 2.000 100.5k: “Inter-urban use” of a midibus Figure 2.Tailpipe In-Use Emissions .000 200.5k: “Express use” of a midibus 800.

van. energy.6d provide indicative cost information for owning a battery electric car.6a: Average car use 80.000 10. The financial information shown relates to costs incurred over the ownership period. mini-bus and midi-bus under the “average” scenario.000 40.000 30.5 cents to run a car on electricity for a mile compared to approximately 15 cents per mile with petrol7.000 30.000 50. The type and capacity of the battery will determine the maximum speed. travel range.6b: Average van use Figure 2. Non-energy running costs (tax and maintenance) are however higher than for conventional petrol and diesel equivalents.2.000 20.000 10.2.000 70.000 0 BEV Petrol Diesel BEV Petrol Diesel Energy costs (fuel) Running costs (non-energy) Capital costs Energy costs (fuel) Running costs (non-energy) Capital costs 7 60.000 0 50. fuel-running costs are low due to the competitive price of electricity and due to the high efficiency of the vehicle. This leads to the overall ownership costs (covering purchase. Due to the potentially high costs involved.000 Adapted from ‘Pathways to Future Vehicles – a 2020 strategy’. some manufacturers offer the opportunity of leasing or renting the battery from them rather than having to buy it (for example. 17 .000 40. The high purchase costs for BEVs are partially offset through reduced energy costs. Th!ink City Car).6a to 2. It can cost as little as 1.2.000 Costs for ownership period.7 Capital and operating costs The cost of ownership of a BEV primarily depends on the cost of the battery. Battery costs make up a significant proportion of the overall capital cost of BEVs.2.000 20. Euro 60. April 2002. battery lifetime and re-charging time. UK Energy Saving Trust. Prices have fallen in recent years and are expected to continue to fall with increasing demand. Note that this information does not include the treatment of business vehicles for tax purposes.2. Euro Costs for ownership period. Figure 2. and operational costs) for BEVs being higher than for petrol and diesel equivalents. Figures 2.2.

000 500.2. particularly in urban driving conditions 18 . representing a bridge between HEV and BEV technology A short summary of the main advantages and disadvantages of hybrid technology include: Disadvantages • Significantly higher capital cost due to additional components and currently expensive battery technology • Higher production and disposal emissions than conventional vehicles Advantages • Significantly improved fuel consumption and reduced running costs • Reduced in-use carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions.000 0 100.000 400.Figure 2.000 20.000 60.000 80.3. The electricity is used only as an intermediate energy storage medium to improve the overall efficiency of the vehicle. Euro 600.000 200. As with BEVs. which captures energy from braking to be put back into the battery . Euro Costs for ownership period.000 Costs for ownership period. Indicative costs of alternative scenarios can be obtained from the Cost of Ownership calculator.1 Introduction Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) are powered by a combination of electricity and either petrol or diesel. with much bigger batteries.5d: Average minibus use 700. most hybrids also use ‘regenerative braking’.5c: Urban full size / midi-bus use Figure 2.3 Hybrid Electric Vehicles 2. 2.this improves energy efficiency and reduces brake wear.2.000 100.000 120. This cuts down on the amount of fuel needed.000 300. Manufacturers are currently developing plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).000 40. They therefore DO NOT need to be plugged in to recharge the battery. producing fewer emissions and lowering overall fuel costs.000 0 BEV Diesel BEV Diesel Energy costs (fuel) Running costs (non-energy) Capital costs Energy costs (fuel) Running costs (non-energy) Capital costs The data behind these figures can be found in Appendix 2.

It does this by operating a smaller (more efficient) internal combustion engine within a narrower. the engine can be stopped and started quickly to reduce stationary engine idling which reduces fuel consumption and the electric motor can recover and store energy from braking that would otherwise be lost as heat – this is referred to as regenerative braking.2. and such engines are usually less efficient and bigger than engines designed to operate over a more restricted range. The combustion engine provides energy indirectly. trucks and buses. hybrid powertrains may offer significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. operating continuously at peak efficiency to provide electrical power via a generator to the electric energy and to the electrical storage. hybrid powertrains are in an advanced demonstration stage/early market introduction phase for light commercial and urban transit bus applications.1: Parallel and series hybrid configurations Parallel Hybrid Series Hybrid In a parallel hybrid. These types of vehicles often require engines that can perform across a relatively wide range of operating conditions. Mild hybrids such as the Honda Civic IMA have smaller electric engines and have to operate the regular engine continuously to provide power to the wheels. For urban areas. In both types of hybrid. can suffer from very large energy losses due to the high proportion of deceleration and braking. A series hybrid has a much bigger and more powerful electric engine that provides all the power to the wheels of the vehicle. In terms of durability. there is a reduced load on the internal combustion engine due to less idling taking place and reduced break wear due to the regenerative breaking system in use. When the power supplied by the combustion engine is surplus to requirements. Whilst there are several light duty passenger hybrid vehicles already available on the market. such as delivery vans. more efficient operational speed/power band and using an electric engine and electrical storage to balance the vehicle’s energy requirements. Vehicles operating in urban areas. both the electric and combustion engines can provide power directly to the wheels of the vehicle. the electric motor assists in acceleration. There are essentially two types of hybrid configurations. The electric engine can provide additional power when the load is greater than can be provided by the smaller combustion engine alone. Regular HEVs operate completely on petrol or diesel fuel and therefore do not require plugging in to charge the battery. but still further away from market implementation for heavy goods vehicles 19 . Super capacitors can store and release smaller amounts of energy much more quickly and efficiently. the vehicle can be powered for short distances by the electric engine alone. Figure 2. the electric engine is used in reverse as a generator to store additional energy in the electrical storage. Current hybrids utilise batteries (which should last the lifetime of the car) as the electrical storage.2 Technology details Hybrid technology operates to improve the overall efficiency of the use of petrol or diesel fuel.3. however future vehicles are likely to also utilise super capacitors. which allows for a smaller and more efficient internal combustion engine. so offering improved regenerative braking efficiency and increased power delivery for acceleration. The energy flow in hybrid vehicles is managed by advanced control systems to optimise the efficiency of operation. In addition. In full/strong hybrids such as the Toyota Prius. illustrated in the figure below.3.

xgem. For comparison purposes.lexus.2.it/english/bimodaleing. Currently there are six test buses in London and the operational evaluation of a prototype double-decker bus equipped with hybrid propulsion technology is set to begin in Dublin later this year.wrightbus. low and high use scenario.000 30% www.000 25% .3.3 Vehicle availability The following hybrid electric cars are currently available for purchase in Ireland: • • • Toyota Prius www.3.honda.micro-vett.3.3c provide estimated CO2 emissions to air as a result of owning and operating a petrol and diesel hybrid car under an average.daimlerchrysler.ie Lexus RX 400h and the Lexus GS 450h www.ie/ Honda Civic IMA www. This is shown in Figures 2.com 20 Low use 15 9.3l below. Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas 8 Average use 10 14. have intensive operating schedules thereby maximising fuel savings over the lifetime of the vehicle and they may spend considerable amounts of time idling.9 litre diesel engine rather than a 7litre diesel engine.toyota.htm Micro-Vett: http://www.net/ DaimlerChrysler: http://www. those emissions arising from a conventional petrol and diesel car are also shown. Current hybrid van manufacturers include: • • • • XGEM: http://www. Passenger car Figures 2.com/ Azure Dynamics: http://www.3. This is because they are primarily used in urban locations. The double-decker buses use a 1.3.000 40% High use 5 25. The figures shown relate to the emissions arising over the whole ownership period.4 Emissions performance Although hybrid vehicles do not offer zero emissions at point of use. It is worth noting that the graphs should not be compared as they relate to different periods of ownership.3a to 2.3a to 2.com/index.3. 2.html WrightBus based in Northern Ireland are one of the largest hybrid bus manufacturers and they offer single and double-decker versions.azuredynamics.ie These vehicles may be particularly suited for use by taxis. they can offer substantial reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and air pollutants compared with conventionally fuelled petrol and diesel vehicles. which leads to substantial fuel savings8.

3a: ““Low car use” Figure 2.1 Vans Figures 2.000 10.000 25. those emissions arising from a conventional petrol and diesel van are also shown.3b: “Average car use” 45.3f provide estimated CO2 emissions to air as a result of owning and operating a petrol and diesel hybrid van under an average. Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas Average use 10 14.3.3.000 35. 2.000 Kg CO2 20.000 40. low and high use scenario.Tailpipe The data behind these graphs and data for air quality pollutants can be found in Appendix 2 and the cost of ownership calculator.000 10.000 0 HEV HEV (petrol) (diesel) Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .Tailpipe In-Use Emissions .3.3.000 30.3c: “High car use” 25.000 10.000 35.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .3.3.Figure 2.4.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions . For comparison purposes.000 5.000 0 0 HEV Petrol HEV Diesel (petrol) (diesel) Production and Recycling/Disposal HEV Petrol HEV Diesel (petrol) (diesel) Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .000 25.000 20.000 20. The figures shown relate to the emissions arising over the whole ownership period.000 15.000 15.Tailpipe Figure 2.000 Kg CO2 Kg CO2 30.000 15.000 30% 21 Low use 15 9.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 5.000 25% .3d to 2.000 40% High use 5 25. It is worth noting that the graphs should not be compared as they relate to different periods of ownership.000 5.

000 40.3.000 10.000 40.000 50.000 0 HEV Petrol HEV Diesel (petrol) (diesel) Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .000 40% .000 60.Figure 2.000 60.000 40% 22 Low use 15 12.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .Tailpipe In-Use Emissions .3e: “Average van use” 80.000 10. low and high use scenario.000 0 0 HEV Petrol (petrol) HEV Petrol (petrol) HEV Diesel (diesel) HEV Diesel (diesel) Production and Recycling/Disposal Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .000 20.000 30.3i provide estimated emissions to air as a result of owning and operating a diesel hybrid minibus under an average.3.000 30.000 40% High use 5 25.3. Minibus assumptions: Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas Average use 10 17.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions . For comparison purposes.3d: ““Low van use” 40.3f: “High van use” 70.Tailpipe Minibus Figures 2.3.000 20.000 70.3.000 80.000 60.Tailpipe Figure 2.000 Kg CO2 50.000 Kg CO2 Kg CO2 Figure 2.000 50.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .3g to 2. those emissions arising from a diesel minibus are also shown.000 20.000 70.000 10.000 30. The figures shown relate to the emissions arising over the whole ownership period. It is worth noting that the graphs should not be compared as they relate to different periods of ownership.

3.3l provide estimated emissions to air as a result of owning an operating a diesel hybrid midi bus under an urban.000 40% Express 10 70.3.000 70.000 30.3. For comparison purposes.000 10% .Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 50.3j to 2.000 10. those emissions arising from a diesel midi bus are also shown.000 20.3g: ““Low minibus use” 40.3.Figure 2.000 0 0 HEV (diesel) HEV (diesel) Diesel Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .000 30.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 0 HEV (diesel) Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .3.000 20.000 Kg CO2 Kg CO2 Figure 2. Midi bus assumptions: Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas Urban 10 30.000 60.000 40. inter-urban and express scenario.Tailpipe Midi bus Figures 2.000 30.3i: “High minibus use” 60.000 50.000 10. The figures shown relate to the emissions arising over the whole ownership period.000 50.000 60.000 90% 23 Inter-urban 10 50.000 70.000 80.000 10.Tailpipe Figure 2.3h: “Average minibus use” 80.Tailpipe In-Use Emissions .Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 20.000 Kg CO2 40.

Further details regarding emission of other pollutants can be found in Appendix 2 and the Cost of Ownership Calculator.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .3.5 Capital and operating costs Hybrid electric vehicles are more expensive to buy than conventionally fuelled vehicles due to the extra batteries and electronics required. 2.000 400.000 300.000 Kg CO2 500.000 200.000 0 0 HEV (diesel) HEV Diesel (diesel) Production and Recycling/Disposal Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .Tailpipe Further information relating to the life-cycle emissions of battery electric vehicles and how this has been estimated can be found in Section 3 and Section 6.000 400.3l: “Express bus” 800.000 0 HEV (diesel) Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .000 200.000 700. 9th January 2007. the largest savings obtained were for the Toyota Prius. This is in contrast with a January 2007 analysis by Intellichoice showing that all 22 currently available HEVs in the United States will save their owners money over a five year period.000 500. the hours of operation.000 500.Tailpipe In-Use Emissions .Figure 2. fuel costs. The results from the cost of ownership calculator show that hybrid cars have higher ownership costs than their conventional alternatives under the low.3.000 300.The different findings between these two studies is as a result of the difference in 9 Hybrids cost-efficient over long haul. http://www.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_autos 24 .Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .businessweek.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 100.000 700.3.000 100. The payback period will depend on the mileage driven.000 100. average and high use scenarios. electricity costs and government subsidies.000 600.000 600.3j: ““Urban midi bus use” 600.3% lower than the cost of comparable nonhybrid vehicles9.Tailpipe Figure 2.000 200.com/autos/content/jan2007/bw20070108_774581. In that study.000 300.3.000 Kg CO2 Kg CO2 400.3k: “Inter-urban midi bus use” Figure 2. which had a five year cost of ownership 40.

This can be seen by entering higher mileage in the “custom” box in the Cost of Ownership calculator as with increased mileage. hybrid cars become economically attractive. Again. average and high use scenarios.mileage assumed. The exception to hybrid vehicles being more expensive than their conventional alternatives (in the scenarios that have been assessed in the cost of ownership calculator) is petrol hybrid vans. 25 . the ownership costs are highly dependent on the assumptions regarding annual average mileage and the proportion of city use. In the examples provided. Diesel hybrid vehicles. Note that the costs shown do not include the treatment of business vehicles for tax purposes. the relatively small increase in capital cost is more than outweighed by the reduced energy costs. minibuses and midi-buses show a similar trend in that the overall ownership costs are higher than their conventional counterparts under the low.

000 100.000 0 500.4d: Costs arising from full size / midi-bus use in urban areas Figure 2.000 10.000 200.000 20.000 20.000 30.000 20.000 Costs for ownership period.000 0 HEV (diesel) Diesel Diesel HEV (diesel) Energy costs (fuel) Running costs (non-energy) Capital costs Diesel Energy costs (fuel) Running costs (non-energy) Capital costs 26 .4b: Costs arising from average van use 45. Euro Figure 2. Euro Costs for ownership period.000 10.000 600.4c: Costs arising from average minibus use 90.000 50.000 15.3.4a: Costs arising from average car use 35.000 40.000 0 50.000 70.000 30.000 40. Euro 80.000 25.000 10.000 400. Euro Costs for ownership period.3.000 5.000 40.000 60.000 60.000 Costs for ownership period.Figure 2.000 30.3.3.000 0 HEV (petrol) Petrol HEV (diesel) Diesel HEV (petrol) Energy costs (fuel) Running costs (non-energy) Capital costs Petrol HEV (diesel) Energy costs (fuel) Running costs (non-energy) Capital costs Figure 2.000 300.

if kept at a high level of charge. they act as a halfway ground between hybrid electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles. The benefits of PHEVs are largely similar to those of electric vehicles in that they can.2. Advantages • Improvements in fuel consumption • Reduction of in-use emissions – potentially to zero • Cheap to run Disadvantages • High capital cost • Lack of availability • Limited range in some types • Emissions can simply be transferred to production sources 2. They also have the additional benefits related to electric motors of quiet operation and rapid acceleration. The second is effectively a battery electric vehicle with a small onboard generator to allow the range of the vehicle to be extended. The first can run indefinitely with the petrol/diesel motor providing the car with the energy required for motion. As such.4. Because of the additional weight of the battery packs.4 Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) 2.4.2 Technology details At the current time there are very few PHEVs available directly from manufacturers. most PHEVs (like BEVs and HEVs) would run a regenerative braking system that puts power from braking back into the battery system.1 Introduction Plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) work similarly to conventional hybrid vehicles in that they can operate using their petrol or diesel engine as well as stored electricity for an electric motor. thus reducing their emissions to zero at the point of use. and if driven for relatively short distances. All of this allows PHEVs to be very efficient. usually in the car and small van sector. There are a number of companies offering conversions from regular hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota Prius to allow external charging. 27 . these are in development and are likely to be available on a bigger scale shortly. However. However. In addition. they could have zero emissions at the point of use. PHEVs tend to be smaller vehicles. There are two key types of PHEV. they have much larger batteries than conventional HEV and can also be charged from the mains when not in use in order to maximise the range available to the electric motor. operate the majority of the time on electric power. although these conversions are not generally approved by the original vehicle manufacturers as yet.

no energy is consumed when the vehicle is at a standstill. For example. because of the nature of electric motors.5 Emissions performance The combination of the internal combustion engine and the electric motor helps hybrid cars perform more efficiently. UQM Technologies. Inc. 2. the only difference being the combustion engine and generator would be insufficient to keep the electrical storage topped up under normal driving conditions but would slow the rate of depletion of the power stored in the batteries.4 Vehicle availability There are no plug-in hybrid electric cars or buses currently available for sale in Ireland. PHEVs also usually incorporate other technologies to aid their day-to-day operation. Super capacitors store energy for a short period of time much more efficiently than a dynamo recharging a battery. This improves the overall efficiency of the vehicle and can significantly improve the range.4. Plug-in hybrids have the additional advantage that they can operate purely on electricity from the grid for short distances. 28 .Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle The illustration above shows the general layout of the power system within a PHEV. There are also technologies such as highspeed flywheels. please see Appendix 1. A variety of companies are currently producing Plug-in hybrid vans such as Mercedes-Benz/ DaimlerChrysler (Germany/USA). which are designed to store energy more efficiently than charging batteries.4. 2. It is very similar to that of a series hybrid but with a larger electrical storage capacity. (USA). 2. so reducing net emissions significantly over regular hybrids. regenerative braking allows energy that would otherwise be wasted as heat during braking to be recycled back into the electrical storage system. This enables the greater range available to these types of vehicles before the combustion engine has to kick in. battery life may be less than for conventional hybrids which do not deplete their batteries as often. It is envisaged that they will be available for purchase in the next few years. MICRO-VETT (Italy) and Citroen (France). The type of PHEV which cannot operate independently of recharging would have a very similar layout. In addition to this. As the number of full cycles affects battery lifetime. Azure Dynamics (USA). For further information on battery types and charging/discharging. XGEM (USA).3 Battery charging PHEVs typically require deeper charging and discharging than conventional hybrids. This technology could be used to further improve the regenerative braking system. cutting down on fuel use. thus conserving energy further. There are also a number of technologies in the pipeline that may improve efficiency even further and increase the viability of electrical motors as a power source.4.

000 45.000 10. It is worth noting that the graphs should not be compared as they relate to different periods of ownership.000 15.000 5.4a: “Low car use” 35.4b: “Average car use” Figure 2.000 5.4a to 2.000 40.000 15.000 Kg CO2 Kg CO2 Low use 15 9.000 10. For comparison purposes.000 15.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 25% Figure 2.000 20.000 35.000 PHEV Petrol (petrol) PHEV (diesel) PHEV Petrol (petrol) Diesel PHEV Diesel (diesel) Production and Recycling/Disposal Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .4.000 25.4c provide indicative CO2 emissions to air as a result of owning and operating a petrol and diesel plug-in hybrid car under an average.000 0 0 5.000 30.4.Tailpipe In-Use Emissions .4.4. The figures shown relate to the emissions arising over the whole ownership period.Passenger car Figures 2.Tailpipe 29 .000 40% 25.4c: “High car use” 25. The results are ‘indicative’ because there are no plug-in hybrids currently for sale in Ireland.000 10.Tailpipe Figure 2. Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas Average use 10 14.000 30.000 30% High use 5 25.000 0 PHEV (petrol) Petrol PHEV (diesel) Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 Kg CO2 20.000 20. those emissions arising from a conventional petrol and diesel car are also shown.4. low and high use scenario.

000 0 0 PHEV (petrol) Petrol PHEV (diesel) PHEV (petrol) Diesel Petrol In-Use Emissions .4d to 2.000 20.000 30. The figures shown relate to the emissions arising over the whole ownership period.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions . those emissions arising from a conventional petrol and diesel van are also shown. It is worth noting that the graphs should not be compared as they relate to different periods of ownership.4.000 40% Diesel In-Use Emissions .000 10.000 20.000 30% 80.000 60.000 10.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 70.Vans Figures 2.4.000 30.000 0 PHEV Petrol PHEV (petrol) (diesel) Production and Recycling/Disposal PHEV (diesel) Production and Recycling/Disposal Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .4. Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas Average use 10 14.000 Kg CO2 Kg CO2 High use 5 25.Tailpipe 30 Diesel .4e: “Average van use” Figure 2.000 20.000 60.000 50.4.000 60.4.000 40.000 80. For comparison purposes.000 25% Figure 2.000 10.000 30.4f provide estimated CO2 emissions to air as a result of owning and operating a petrol and diesel plug-in hybrid van under average.4d: “Low van use” 40.Tailpipe Kg CO2 Low use 15 9.000 50.000 40.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .Tailpipe Figure 2.000 70.000 50. low and high use scenarios.4f: “High van use” 70.

Tailpipe In-Use Emissions .000 80.000 10.000 0 0 PHEV (diesel) PHEV (diesel) Diesel Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .4.5.4.Tailpipe 2. For comparison purposes.000 50.1 Figure 2.4g: “Low minibus use” Low use 15 12. low and high use scenario.000 70.000 30.000 60.000 40.000 60.000 Kg CO2 40.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .4i provide estimated emissions to air as a result of owning and operating a diesel plug-in hybrid minibus under an average. Minibus assumptions: Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas Average use 10 17.000 20.4i: “High minibus use” 60.000 40.000 40% Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .000 70.4. It is worth noting that the graphs should not be compared as they relate to different periods of ownership.4g to 2.000 40% 80.Minibus Figures 2.000 0 PHEV (diesel) High use 5 25.4.000 40% Figure 2.4h: “Average minibus use” Kg CO2 Kg CO2 Figure 2.000 20.000 30.000 50.000 30.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 20.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions . those emissions arising from a diesel minibus are also shown.4.000 10.000 10.000 50.4.Tailpipe 31 . The figures shown relate to the emissions arising over the whole ownership period.

000 500.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .4j: “Urban midi bus use” 600.4.000 400. For comparison purposes.000 40% Express 10 70. long distance) scenarios.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 0 0 PHEV (diesel) PHEV (diesel) Diesel Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions . 32 .Tailpipe Figure 2.Midi bus Figures 2.000 300.000 10% Figure 2.4k: “Inter-urban midi bus use” Figure 2.000 500.4l provide estimated emissions to air as a result of owning and operating a diesel plug-in hybrid midi bus under urban.000 100.e.000 100.2.000 600.000 500. those emissions arising from a diesel midi bus are also shown.000 90% Inter-urban 10 50. inter-urban and express (i.Tailpipe Further information relating to the life-cycle emissions of battery electric vehicles and how this has been estimated can be found in Section 3.000 100.000 400.000 0 PHEV (diesel) Diesel Production and Recycling/Disposal In-Use Emissions .000 Kg CO2 Kg CO2 400.000 Kg CO2 600.000 200.4j to 2.4l: “Express midi bus use” 800.2.000 300.000 700.000 200.000 300.000 200.4.Fuel Cycle In-Use Emissions .000 700.4. The figures shown relate to the emissions arising over the whole ownership period.Tailpipe In-Use Emissions . Midi bus assumptions: Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas Urban 10 30.

At present however. This is due to the much greater capital costs involved when purchasing plug-in hybrids. plug-in hybrids have greater total ownership costs than conventional vehicles.6 Capital and operating costs As with regular hybrid electric vehicles.4. the introduction by manufacturers of more mass-market plug-in hybrid electric vehicles is expected to rapidly drive down the cost of electric drive components. 33 . 2.Further details regarding emissions of other pollutants can be found in Appendix 1 and the Cost of Ownership Calculator.

000 300.000 0 PHEV (petrol) 40.000 0 600.000 0 PHEV (diesel) Figure 2. Euro Costs for ownership period.000 400.000 20.000 40.000 5. Euro 50.Figure 2.000 20.000 10.000 30.5a: Costs of ownership under average car use Figure 2.000 35.000 Costs for ownership period.000 0 PHEV (diesel) Diesel PHEV (diesel) Diesel Energy costs (fuel) Running costs (non-energy) Capital costs Energy costs (fuel) Running costs (non-energy) Capital costs Further information on the costs of ownership and the emissions performance of the vehicles mentioned in this study can be found in Appendix 1 & 2 and in the “Cost of Ownership” calculator.5d: Costs of ownership under urban full size / midi-bus use 100.000 10.000 30. 34 .4.000 PHEV (petrol) Energy costs (fuel) Running costs (non-energy) Capital costs Petrol PHEV (diesel) Diesel Energy costs (fuel) Running costs (non-energy) Capital costs Figure 2. Euro Costs for ownership period.000 20.000 700.000 500.000 100.000 30.000 10.000 15.000 50.000 200. Euro 50.4.000 45.000 90.000 40.000 70.000 60.000 25.4.5c: Costs of ownership under average mini-bus use 60.000 80.4.000 Costs for ownership period.5b: Costs of ownership under average van use 70.

10 Energy and raw material requirements Energy and raw material requirement Energy and raw material requirements Component Production Assembly of Product Use of Product Disposal of Product Emissions to air. whether credits are given for recycling of materials . Figure 3.1b 10 House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology. up to 90% energy savings are achievable for aluminium recycling). 35 . water and soil Emissions to air.1 Introduction Lifecycle analysis (LCA) is a generic technique for estimating the inputs and impacts associated with a product or system throughout its lifetime. It can be thought of as environmental accounting – the summing of all the energy and materials inputs. for example. For example.1a below. water and soil Emissions to air.so avoiding a proportion of the emissions that would otherwise be emitted to produce the raw materials (this can be significant.3 Life cycle analysis 3. and the solid waste streams associated with the production. The following elements are common to most LCA’s as illustrated in Figure 3. 1999 – 2000. emissions to air and water.1a: Inputs and outputs that should be considered in a LCA study. These standards differ slightly according to the boundaries they place on the emissions sources that should be included in the analysis. water and soil Emissions to air. use and disposal of a product or system. water and soil Energy and raw material requirement Several standards have been developed for undertaking an LCA in an effort to allow studies carried out by different organisations to be comparable. This is illustrated in Figure 3.

1b: Stages in a LCA as Defined by SETAC (ISO 14040)10 Goal Definition Used to define the system boundaries. 36 . resource depletion. policy formation etc. purpose and functional unit of a study Inventory Data gathered and stored in a spreadsheet format Impact Assessment The impact is assessed through three subdivisions Valuation Assigns relative values or weights to impacts in order to facilitate comparisons – is subjective Classification Aggregates data into separate areas.1. eco-labelling.g. global warming potential Improvement Assessment Incorporates the results into applications for product design. e. e.1 Characteri sation Quantifies the relative contributions each make to environmental problems.1.g.Figure 3. ozone and greenhouse gases 1.

37 . 2. However. glass.1.1 Lifecycle analysis definition The environmental impacts of vehicles can be divided into two categories: those impacts associated with the production. The vehicle life cycle includes the following processes during which energy is consumed and emissions and waste are generated: a) Raw material extraction and material production – the materials used include steel. the terms used are fuel life cycle and vehicle life cycle.2 Lifecycle emissions – case studies The following section considers outcomes from relevant lifecycle analysis case studies that have been reviewed. Lifecycle analysis (LCA) studies also frequently refer to ‘well-to-tank’ or ‘well-to-wheel’ impacts/emissions. 3. Information on whole lifecycle analysis is provided first. impacts and emissions covered by ‘well to tank’ as well as the emissions associated with powering the vehicle. Respectively. Lifecycle assessment of vehicle fuels and technologies. These are: • • • Use – fuel cycle Materials Disposal of vehicles 11 Ecolane. c) Vehicle distribution – transport of a vehicle from the assembly line to the dealerships. some studies simply refer to the “lifecycle” emissions. ‘Well to tank’ is normally used in the context of the fuel lifecycle and can be defined as the inputs. 3. Fuel production – refining/processing of the raw materials into standard fuel. f) Vehicle disposal – end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) are shredded and a proportion of some materials are recycled for further use. d) Vehicle use – energy consumed during vehicle operation (sometimes assessed as part of the fuel life-cycle) e) Vehicle maintenance – maintenance and repair over the lifetime of the vehicle. In addition. maintenance and disposal of the vehicle. In the case of fossil fuels the fuel life cycle includes the following processes during which energy is consumed and emissions are generated11: 1. 2006. If these cycles are taken to include all the product processes from cradle-tograve. In contrast. Fuel use – consumption of fuel during vehicle operation (sometimes assessed as part of vehicle cycle). followed by specific further information that has been obtained on certain aspects of the lifecycle. processing and use of the fuel. emissions occurring from fuel use will also occur but these will be from the combustion of fuel at power stations to produce electricity rather than being generated from the vehicle itself. It does not include the emissions associated with powering the vehicle. In the case of electricity production a similar approach to above is used. Activities associated with fuel production and preparation and fuel distribution to power stations (which involves losses) will occur and the emissions arising from these activities will need to be taken into account. refining and delivering the fuel to the refuelling station. well to wheels includes all the inputs. and those impacts that arise during the manufacture. Fuel distribution – distribution of the fuels to fuel stations. which can be taken to mean the fuel lifecycle emissions + the vehicle lifecycle emissions. non-ferrous metals such as aluminium. plastics. A study carried out for the London Borough of Camden. rubber and composites such as glass fibre.3. these are termed the fuel cycle and the vehicle cycle. b) Vehicle assembly – energy is required to assemble components and operate manufacturing plant. impacts and emissions associated with extracting.

The study concluded that: • • • • 12 13 Gasoline powered vehicles release the lowest levels of CO2 emissions during manufacture.3.1 Overview Case study – Life Cycle Analysis of Honda Accord Hybrid Vehicles12 Whole life cycle analysis included the fuel efficiency during use.2.2. The study concluded that: • • Hybrid electric vehicles have higher production and disposal impacts but improved vehicle efficiencies can lead to overall reductions in emissions. California 2006 Tahara et al Seikei University Tokyo (2001) 38 . The use of a hybrid engine leads to approximately a 25% reduction in CO2 emissions during the vehicle use phase.2. the production emissions and the final disposal impact of hybrid and conventional vehicles. hybrid and electric powered vehicles. The results are presented in Figure 3. Figure 3. Gasoline powered vehicles have high in use emissions which leads to them having the highest life cycle emissions overall.1a: Lifecycle CO2 emissions for a gasoline.1a below. Life cycle emissions from electric vehicles are highly dependent on the source of electricity used to power them. Hybrids and electric vehicles have higher manufacturing emissions than conventional gasoline vehicles. Shekar Viswanathan and Luz Stella Bradley National University. Case study – Electric vs gasoline13 The study looked at the CO2 emissions that can be attributed to use and manufacture.

March 2006 39 . renewable energy battery electric (ReBEV) and hybrid electric (HEV) vehicle technologies.energysavingtrust. which demonstrates that there are already hybrid technologies on the market that could be classified as low carbon. The vehicle types analysed were petrol (PET). liquid petroleum gas (LPG). biodiesel (BioD). 5 sizes of vehicle have been assessed ranging from a small city car to a large sports utility vehicle.Case study . The outputs of the research were to be used to compare the lifecycle environmental performance of cleaner vehicles with each other and against conventional vehicle fuels / technologies to inform future transport policy developments within the London Borough of Camden. The Honda Insight achieves 92 grams/km well to wheel CO2 emissions. compressed natural gas (CNG). Figure 3. For each fuel type. 14 Pathways to future vehicles – A 2020 strategy. The study recommended that the UK government worked in partnership with vehicle manufacturers and fuel suppliers to strive for 10% of new car sales in the UK being low carbon by 2010. average mix battery electric (AvBEV).org.Pathways to Future Vehicles14 The strategy examined three key pathways to achieving low carbon vehicle fuels and technologies. April 2002 http://www.uk/fleet/usefulresources/strategicpolicydocuments/ 15 Lifecycle assessment of vehicle fuels and technologies. diesel (DSL). bioethanol (BioE). They definition of a low carbon car was less than or equal to 100g/km of CO2 measured on a well to wheels basis. Final report.2. Greenhouse gas emissions The results of the study conducted by Ecolane for the London Borough of Camden show a number of trends in the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. London Borough of Camden. Energy Savings Trust. Ecolane.1b: The well to wheel CO2 performance of current car technologies Case Study – Ecolane Transport and the London Borough of Camden15 The London Borough of Camden commissioned Ecolane Ltd to conduct a research project to assess the lifecycle environmental impacts of commercially available road vehicles and technologies in the UK. This research was driven by the need to have clear information on the emission profiles of each of the options as it was felt that there was difficulty for the fleet operator or policy maker to make informed decisions as to which vehicle technology or fuel was most appropriate for a given application.

1c: Lifecycle CO2 emissions for passenger cars.2. This is most likely due to the high levels of particulate emissions that are inherent with the central power generation system in the UK. The results together with the main findings of the study for particulates (PM10).1d: Lifecycle PM10 emissions for passenger cars. nitrogen oxides (NOx). The study highlighted that battery electric vehicles have high levels of operational efficiency Air Quality The air quality impacts of different vehicles were also tested. diesel has the highest ‘in use’ PM10 40 . CO2 emissions from battery electric vehicles occur during the fuel and vehicle production stages. Of the conventionally fuelled vehicles.2. • • • Battery electric vehicles using average mix electricity for their battery charging were found to be the highest emitters of PM10. The following conclusions on CO2 emissions were made by the study: • • • • • Petrol vehicles have the highest levels of CO2 emissions across their life cycle Hybrids offer a reduction compared to petrol of 27% Battery electric vehicles offer a reduction of 43% for those using average mix electricity and at least 80% for those using a renewable energy source. There are no emissions associated with the vehicle use phase. carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HCs) are shown below: Figure 3. It must be noted that this situation would differ greatly depending on the energy mix being used to generate electricity and therefore the results may differ if an Ireland specific study was conducted. Hybrid electric vehicles release low levels of PM10 emissions.Figure 3.

life cycle NOx emissions are significantly greater for diesel cars than for petrol. Diesel fuelled vehicles show levels of CO emissions that are comparable to those of the hybrid electric cars. petrol cars are responsible for higher levels of lifecycle CO emissions than diesel cars.1e: Lifecycle NOx emissions for passenger cars • • • • • Life-cycle NOx emissions vary widely between the vehicle types. If compared by vehicle size. Hybrid electric cars also have low lifecycle NOx emissions. Battery electric vehicles charged with the average electricity mix perform worse than HEVs with regard to NOx emissions. The majority of CO emissions for battery and hybrid electric vehicles occur during the vehicle manufacturing stage of the life cycle. Battery electric cars charged from renewable sources have the lowest life cycle NOx emissions. 41 .1f: Lifecycle carbon monoxide (CO) emissions for passenger cars • • • • Carbon monoxide emissions are similar across many of the different vehicle technologies available.Figure 3.2. Of the conventionally powered vehicles. most of which occur during the vehicle operation phase of the life cycle. Figure 3.2. Electric and hybrid electric vehicles do show improvements over their conventionally fuelled counterparts. The majority of emissions occurring during fuel production for petrol models and during operation for diesel models. with the exception of bioethanol.

though this depends on the location of manufacturing and refining facilities. Study 116 The study looked at the energy consumed and exhaust gases emitted during the operational phase of the vehicle. Belgium.2.Figure 3. The four vehicles studied are described in Table 3. electric and hybrid vehicles.2. the majority of these emissions are likely to occur away from dense urban populations.1 This study suggested that fuel life cycle emissions for the use of petrol HEV compared with a typical petrol vehicle can offer: • • 75% reductions in HC.2a below. These are discussed below. CO and NOx emissions 30% reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel use Case Studies – University of Liege Two case studies have been conducted by the University of Liege on the lifecycle emissions of vehicles.pdf 42 . Mitsubishi 2000 Seat Ibiza TDI Peugeot 206 cm3 Petrol Diesel Electricity Energy supply 81 20 Max. including the whole supply chain from cradle (extraction of primary energy) to gate (moving vehicle).2.2.ulg.ac.1g: Lifecycle hydrocarbon (HC) emissions for passenger cars • • • • The vast majority of HC emissions occur during the fuel production stage of the life cycle. power (Kw) 106 Yes Yes EGR 3-way catalyst Oxidation Catalyst Lead-acid Lead-acid Ni-Cd Battery type Toyota Prius Petrol + electricity 75 Yes 3-way catalyst Ni-MH Note: EGR = exhaust gas re-circulation technology 16 A simplified LCA for automotive sector – comparison of ICE (diesel and petrol).2. Table 3. University of Liege. Sophie Nicolay.be/cior-fsa/publicat/8lca_ve. 2000 http://www.2a: The main technical characteristics of the four vehicles studied.2 Fuel life-cycle Case study – Ecolane Transport Consultancy and London Borough of Camden15 For further information on the Ecolane study please see Section 3. Battery electric vehicles charged from average mix electricity also perform well. Emissions of HCs for battery electric vehicles charged from renewable sources are therefore significantly lower than those for any other technology. It should be noted that due to the fact that the majority of HC emissions occur during the fuel and vehicle production stages. 3.

008 0.024 0.2. the second scenario is where electricity is consumed from the average Belgium mix but excluding nuclear power. This is in agreement with other studies.6 i VW Golf 1. The SO2 emissions resulting from the electric vehicle excluding nuclear power are high.126 0.020 0.021 0.010 0.145 SO2 (g/km) 0.9 TDI Peugeot 106 Petrol Diesel Electricity Energy supply 66 20 Max.118 0. University of Liege.229 0. are presented here. power (Kw) 80. electricity is obtained from the average Belgium power station mix.004 104 0.010 5.106 0.0E-4 0. The PM10 emissions released during the use phase of the diesel vehicle are high.076 0. This is as a result of the sulphur contained in the coal and oil used to fuel Belgium’s power stations.2c: The main technical characteristics of the four vehicles studied. In the first.050 NOx (g/km) 0.311 1.33 0.556 0.156 The study found that: • • • • • • Hybrid vehicles offer a significant carbon reduction compared to petrol and diesel.2c below.9 3-way catalyst Oxidation Catalyst Lead-acid Lead-acid Ni-Cd Battery type 17 Toyota Prius Hybrid: Petrol 75 3-way catalyst Ni-MH Comparison of 2 models of environmental evaluation – application to a particular case study (alternative vehicles) B Gerkens.2.2.139 N2O (g/km) 0.2b: Fuel cycle emissions according to the first University of Liege study Petrol Vehicle Diesel Vehicle Electric Vehicle (average energy mix for electricity generation) Electric Vehicle (excluding nuclear power from the energy mix) Hybrid Vehicle CO2 (g/km) 217 170 73 CH4 (g/km) 0. The hybrid vehicle results in the lowest NOx emissions.186 HC (g/km) 0.be/cior-fsa/publicat/9lca-av.478 0.416 0.860 0.121 0.004 0.2.017 CO (g/km) 3. Belgium http://www.157 0.002 163 0. which are directly applicable to this study. The reduction of emissions offered by electric vehicles depends strongly on the source of electricity.Two assumptions have been considered for the electric vehicle. As expected NOx emissions are highest from the diesel vehicle.pdf 43 .783 0. Six vehicles were assessed in the study but only the results of four.927 0.006 0. The results are presented in Table 3. The high CH4 emissions obtained from electric vehicles are as a result of high CH4 emissions from the extraction of coal. As the results are derived from the average energy mix for Belgium.323 0. Honda Civic 1.ac. Study 217 The aim of the second University of Liege study was to show how two different methods of environmental impact assessment could be used in order to determine the advantages and disadvantages of a particular vehicle type.050 0.2b below. Characteristics of the four vehicles are provided in Table 3. Table 3. Table 3.6E-5 PM10 (g/km) 0. different conclusions may be obtained if based on Ireland specific data.ulg.

011 183 0.215 0. [CARB 2004d] Staff Report: Initial Statement of reasons for proposed Rulemaking.2.581 0. In the first one.244 0.090 0. 2005 for a list of technologies that provides a CO2 emission reduction on the type approval test.003 0.050 CO (g/km) 1.002 PM10 (g/km) 0.099 0.149 0. 2006 Review and analysis of the reduction potential and costs of technological and other measures to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars. The Californian Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board have announced regulations aimed at reducing CO2 emissions from road vehicles. however the lowest CO2 emissions are obtained by operating an electric vehicle powered by the average electricity mix.004 0. Table 3. Hybrid electric drive transmissions were amongst the different technologies considered. In support of this they have developed an inventory.2d: Fuel cycle emissions according to the second University of Liege study Petrol Vehicle Diesel Vehicle Electric Vehicle (average production) Electric Vehicle (without nuclear production) Hybrid Vehicle CO2 (g/km) 249 178 94 CH4 (g/km) 0.2e.003 0. 20 IEA 2005] Making cars more fuel efficient: Technology for Real Improvements on the Road.159 0. 19 [CARB 2004a] Staff proposal regarding the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars.131 0.031 0.218 0.2.2. August 2004. California Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board.212 HC (g/km) 0.378 0.055 0. Higher emissions were obtained in the second study for the Toyota Prius as a result of emissions associated with the construction of the vehicle being taken into account. June 2004.497 0. International Energy Agency and European Conference of Ministers of Transport Joint Report. As with the first study. California Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board.2f provides CO2 reduction potentials as presented in IEA.027 NOx (g/km) 0. The reduction of emissions achieved by using electric vehicles depends strongly on the source of electricity. conducted for the European Commission looked into a wide range of potential methods (both technical and non-technical) for reducing the CO2 emissions arising from passenger cars and their associated costs.320 0. Case study: Review and analysis of the reduction potential and costs of technological and other measures to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars18 This study.242 The conclusions from this second study were the same in that: • • • Hybrid vehicles were shown to offer low CO2 emissions. Unfortunately the sources of data are not documented in the original source. The study reviewed two California Air Resources Board (CARB) studies19 and an International Energy Agency (IEA) Study20.366 0.035 0.023 0. Table 3.065 0.160 N2O (g/km) 0.025 135 0. Public hearing to consider adoption of regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.This study assessed the fuel cycle emissions from cradle (extraction of primary energy) to grate (moving vehicle) and vehicle construction emissions. Again the results for electric vehicles are based on the average Belgium fuel mix and therefore different results may be obtained if the study was repeated using Ireland specific data.480 0.003 0. 18 TNO/IEEP/LAT. two assumptions have been considered for the electric vehicle.149 0.384 0. The data is based on in house expertise and consultation of external experts.162 0. the results of which are presented in [CARB 2004a] and [CARB 2004d] and are provided in Table 3.211 SO2 (g/km) 0. an electric car is powered using the average Belgian fuel mix and in the second scenario an electric car is powered using the average Belgium fuel mix but excluding nuclear power. 2005 44 .

Table 3.2.2e: CO2 emissions reduction potential and manufacture costs. (Data derived from CARB 2004a
and CARB 2004d19)

The CARB research suggests that the use of a hybrid drive system can lead to anywhere between a
20% and nearly 40% reduction in CO2 emissions when compared to a petrol fuelled vehicle,
depending on whether the hybrid system used is a mild hybrid or full hybrid. Table 3.2.2f, which has
been taken from the IEA report, shows a similar set of results to that of Table 3.2.2e. However, the
reductions achievable with a mild hybrid are much lower at only 5-7% of the petrol engine. However,
the full hybrid potential reduction of 30-50% is similar to those shown in Table 3.2.2e. This set of
figures also shows potential reduction rates of 3-5% for the use of a stop-start function.

45

Table 3.2.2f: Type approval CO2 reduction data from [IEA, 2005] for various technologies

3.2.3 Materials
Case study – Ecolane Transport and the London Borough of Camden, 2006
The Ecolane report contains information regarding the average material content of a number of
different vehicles and ties this to the emissions attributable to the production of that material. In this
way it is possible to produce some more detailed results as to the lifecycle impacts that can be
attributed to different types of vehicle. Table 3.2.3a below shows the material composition for a
number of different vehicle types. Petrol, diesel and biofuel internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles
are included along with a nickel metal hydride hybrid electric vehicle, a conversion battery electric
vehicle and a dedicated battery electric vehicle. It is important to note that due to overall size
differences the absolute quantity of materials often differs between vehicles but the proportions of
materials may remain similar.

46

Table 3.2.3a : Material composition of six normalised vehicle types21

Table 3.2.3a shows that the majority of the vehicle types being considered contain very similar
materials on a percentage basis. However, exceptions to this do exist. One of the key differences is in
the use of lead. Conventionally fuelled vehicles contain very little, with lead only making up around
1% of the total vehicle mass. However, for the two electric vehicles considered this proportion is
much higher at 15% and 28% for the conversion and the dedicated BEV respectively. This can be
attributed to the presence of large lead acid battery packs to power the vehicle. The small amount of
lead in the hybrid drive model is explained by the use of nickel metal hydride batteries rather than
lead acid batteries. Likewise, an electric vehicle using different battery technologies would not have
such a high proportion of lead in the content of the vehicle.
Lighter weight materials also represent a greater proportion of the mass of alternatively fuelled
vehicles. This is most likely in an effort to save mass and thus extend the range by improving the fuel
consumption of these types of vehicle. The dedicated battery electric vehicle contains more
composite material than all the other vehicle types and both the conversion and dedicated battery
electric vehicle contain less ferrous materials. Similarly the hybrid electric contains much higher
quantities of aluminium, a much lighter material for bodywork than ferrous materials.
The above Ecolane study however presents values on a normalised basis. This can be misleading
when looking at the overall amount of material used in a vehicle. This is because hybrid vehicles are
heavier than their conventional petrol / diesel alternative. Some illustrative equivalent weights of
vehicles are show in Table 3.2.3b below.
Table 3.2.3b: Vehicle weight differences between 2007 model year HEVs and their Internal
Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICEV) counterparts22
Hybrid electric vehicles

Equivalent ICEV vehicles

Increased weight of the HEV
compared to the ICEV (Kg)
Toyota Prius, 2nd generation
Toyota Matrix
61
Toyota Camry
Toyota Camry
169
Honda Civic
Honda Civic
84
Honda Accord
Honda Accord
110
Lexus GS450h
Lexus GS430
175
Nissan Altima
Nissan Altima
150
For an accurate picture of the amount of materials used in different technology types, the data is Table 3.2.3a
should be combined with that in Table 3.2.3b.

Table 3.2.3c shows the quantities of emissions that can be attributed to the use of various materials
used in vehicle production (quoted in terms of grams of pollutant per kilogram of material produced).
This data can be applied to the proportions of the materials in Table 3.2.3a to get an overall picture of
21
Ecolane, 2006. Lifecycle assessment of vehicle fuels and technologies. A study carried out for the London Borough of
Camden.
22
Reynolds & Kandikar, 2007. How hybrid electric vehicles are different from conventional vehicles: the effect of weight and
power on fuel consumption, Environmental Research letters. http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/17489326/2/1/014003/erl7_1_014003.html

47

2003. It is thought that this figure is similar to that achieved in Ireland. Table 3. 2000.wasteonline. End of life vehicles (ELVs) are generally stripped of any materials that could be of use as spare parts or could be reconditioned for reuse as well as many materials that pose a particular environmental hazard such as oil from the engine and fuel remaining in the tank and fuel lines. Producers must ensure that vehicles do not contain lead. Paper 1 – automotive International Primary Aluminium Institute.3c: Emissions attributable to materials production21.23 3. This removal of parts makes it very difficult to make any exact assumptions as to the recycling rate as different vehicles will have different quantities of materials removed before the recycling stage depending on age. 2004. 2002. From the 1st January 2007. The proportions of plastics and other materials is much lower. These targets are in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2000/53/EC. Journal of cleaner production (13) pp1258 – 1268. World Steel lifecycle inventory methodology report. International Aluminium Institute. type of vehicle. Lifecycle inventory of the worldwide aluminium industry with regard to energy consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases. These metals are used by the steel industry and in smelting plants.uk End of life vehicle and tyre recycling information sheet. IPAI 2000. http://www. 2005.org. Disposal impacts vary widely from country to country depending on the level of recycling and recovery of materials that occurs there. owners of intact end of life cars and vans could deposit them free of charge at authorised treatment facilities. Rydh & Sun. Keep records of the aggregate weight of materials for re-use. recovery and disposal arising from end of life vehicles and report to Local Authorities on an annual basis. recycling. The Waste Management (end of life vehicles) Regulations came into effect in June 2006.4 Disposal Disposal of vehicles is a stage that must be included in any full life cycle analysis . This places obligations on producers and vehicle importers to: • • • • Establish national collection systems for the recovery and treatment of end of life vehicles. Committee of Environmental Affairs. International Iron & Steel Institute. mercury.2. how well it has been designed for dismantling and the reason it has been scrapped. 24 Wasteonline. cadmium or hexavalent chromium other than in cases specified in the fourth schedule of the regulations. 48 .2. in 23 IISI 2002. The Regulations also introduce new environmental standards to ensure that when a vehicle is scrapped as much material as possible is recovered and recycled and that it takes place in a way that does not harm the environment.the quantity of emissions produced during the production life cycle analysis for different vehicle types. Lifecycle inventory data for materials grouped according to environmental and material properties. IAI 2003 – Lifecycle assessment of aluminium. In the UK around 98% of (ferrous and non-ferrous) metals from ELVs are currently recovered for reuse24. Producers are obliged to make available to authorised treatment facilities dismantling information for each type of new specific vehicle put on the market in Ireland within six months of the vehicle being on the market. Brussels.

49 . glass and ferrous metals. Credits rather than costs may be given for recycling of some materials – particularly aluminium. such as NiMH and particularly Li-ion (where valuable materials can be recovered). This directive has led to the development of a very well established system for collection of lead acid batteries. Similarly high levels of recycling are anticipated for newer batteries used in hybrid and electric vehicles. Similarly. Recycling can therefore lead to significant reductions in some emissions when incorporated into the overall balance of vehicle lifecycle emissions. as these are produced from raw material in a very energy intensive way. EC directive 91/157/EEC requires the collection of batteries containing lead. With the rates of reuse and recycling set to increase under the ELV Directive the overall lifecycle impact of vehicles may be expected to reduce in the future. Because of this recycling rates are estimated to be in excess of 90%.part due to the variety of materials used and the subsequent difficulty encountered with sorting and recycling. reuse of components can also be counted as a credit as it can lead to the reduction in new parts manufacture.

733 40.548 PSV (small) PSV (large) School buses Other buses Total 21.734 14. PHEVs & BEVs 3. 3.2a: Total Number of Vehicles in Ireland in 2005 by Vehicle Category25 Passenger cars 1.2a to 4. • Minibuses.343 Table 4.082 247.3302 3303 . The information shown is the most recent year for which this information was available.415.852 60.928 Diesel 246.662.145 507 7.625 1.2540 2541 . • Light utility vehicles (or vans). The following vehicles have been considered in this study: • Passenger cars.773 Table 4.2794 2795 . This information has been used in the “Cost of ownership calculator”.271 Irish bulletin of vehicle and driver statistics 2005 (vehicle registration unit) 50 LPG 48 - .888 7.3048 3049 .901 5.157 Goods vehicles 286.4 Fleet operation statistics. It has been decided to concentrate on these vehicle types due to their significant contribution to Ireland’s CO2 emissions. Weight category (Kg) Not exceeding 610 611 – 813 814 – 1016 1017 – 1270 1271 – 1524 1525 . and • Full sized public transport buses. PHEVs and BEVs in Ireland.2032 2033 . Table 4. Table 4.1778 1779 .2c provide information on the number of vehicles currently in operation in Ireland.5 tonnes is classified as a light duty vehicle and is therefore of interest to this study.2286 2287 .366 517 249. A vehicle under 3.3 Introduction This section reviews and identifies the main potential candidate vehicle owner groups and uses for HEVs.2b: Total number of passenger cars and vans by fuel type Vehicle type Car Van Petrol 1.400 1.3500 TOTAL 25 Number of vehicles 1.2c shows that light duty vehicles comprise around 87% of the total number of goods vehicles in Ireland.643 59.636 2.548 2.979.018 537 1. Tables’ 4.2c: Number of goods vehicles by unladen weight in 2005.200 1.Review of primary potential candidate owner groups and uses for HEVs.489 51.

8 31% Table 4.6 0.1 30% 18. Interactions and Synergies model) 26 provides a consistent framework for the analysis of reduction strategies for air pollutants across Europe and beyond.7 56.1 58. The model estimates historic emissions of these pollutants based on information collected from international inventories and provides forecasts up until 2030. Table 4. Various major emission projection scenarios incorporating current legislation have been developed using the GAINS model.3a: Estimated CO2 from road transport as predicted by the GAINS model (Mtonnes).6 3.6 15. Table 4.7 2015 (%) 6% 13% 0% 52% 29% 100% 2020 1.2 0. GAINS (the Greenhouse gas and Air Pollution.9 16. Table 4.4 5.0 2.4 0.3a provides GAINS’ estimated CO2 emissions arising from road transport activity.7 4.4 26% 15. Vehicle type Buses HGVs Motorcycles Cars LDVs Total RT 26 2005 0.3 52.7 2005 (%) 6% 13% 0% 52% 29% 100% 2010 0. The data shows that CO2 emissions are expected to increase from this sector by over 20% between 2005 and 2020. HEVs and PHEVs have been assessed have been taken from the NEC_NAT_CLEV4 scenario. buses on the other hand only contribute ~6% of emissions.3 18. as it is likely that this is where the largest gains can be made.0 7. The exception to this maybe buses where local governments may subsidise their use and therefore may have an influence over the technologies in use.0 0. HEVs and PHEVs.9 2.0 6. It is interesting to note that the contribution that each of the vehicle types make to total road transport emissions stays roughly the same in all years presented.3 2010 (%) 6% 13% 0% 51% 30% 100% http://www.0 8.ac. In the case of CO2.5 Predicted CO2 emissions from road transport Predicted CO2 emissions for Ireland have been taken from the GAINS model.3.at/web-apps/apd/RainsWeb/ 51 2015 1.0 2. When considering the promotion of BEVs. cars comprise the majority of emissions followed by light duty vehicles.iiasa. The model considers those pollutants covered by the National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD) as well as particulate matter and greenhouse gases.1 2020 (%) 6% 13% 0% 52% 29% 100% .3b: Estimated CO2 emissions by vehicle class as predicted by the GAINS model (Mtonnes).7 1.8 4. Total RT Total (all sectors) RT as a % of total emissions 2005 2010 2015 2020 12.7 48. priority should be given to those vehicles that contribute the most emissions. This scenario incorporates data provided by Ireland and assumes the introduction of Euro V and VI for light duty vehicles and Euro VI for heavy-duty vehicles.3b provides a breakdown of CO2 emissions by vehicle type. The results presented in the following text and against which possible reductions in CO2 emissions arising from the use of BEVs.3 29% 16.7 12.0 9.

239 Diesel car Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid car -7.199 Petrol car Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid car -10.4.4.349 Petrol van Æ petrol hybrid van -13.929 Petrol van Æ battery electric van -47.1a ranks the different options in terms of CO2 emission reductions per vehicle and Table 4.441 Diesel van Æ Petrol hybrid van +3610 52 .2 for fleet details).1b ranks the different options in terms of CO2 emission reductions if 10% of the fleet was switched to the newer technologies (See Section 4. The data presented relates to the “average” scenario for cars.1a: Rank ordering of options in terms of CO2 reductions on a per vehicle basis Conversion Change in CO2 emissions (Kg) Diesel full size/midi bus Æ battery electric full size/midi bus -435.6 Ranking of owner and usage categories in terms of potential emissions and economic benefits This section compares the different vehicle types in terms of their greenhouse gas emission benefits.3. Table 4.174 Diesel van Æ battery electric van -30.967 Diesel car Æ petrol hybrid car -3.4.104 Petrol van Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid van -29.346 Petrol van Æ petrol plug-in-hybrid van -18.1 Ranking of options based on CO2 emission reductions Table 4.159 Diesel van Æ diesel hybrid van -9.403 Diesel car Æ diesel hybrid car -4.515 Diesel minibus Æ battery electric minibus -38.878 Petrol car Æ petrol plug-in-hybrid car -9.507 Diesel minibus Æ diesel hybrid minibus -14.852 Petrol car Æ battery electric car -14.635 Diesel full size/midi bus Æ diesel hybrid full size/midi bus -182. 3. The approach taken in this analysis has been to first rank the different options in terms of their CO2 emission abatement performance and then to assess the economic benefits associated with the reduction in emissions.289 Diesel minibus Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid minibus -22. The change in CO2 emissions refers to reductions achieved over the ownership period.801 Diesel van Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid van -12.931 Petrol car Æ petrol hybrid car -5.851 Petrol car Æ diesel hybrid car -7.570 Diesel car Æ battery electric car -12.981 Petrol van Æ diesel hybrid van -27.095 Diesel van Æ Petrol – plug in hybrid van -1.6. Significantly different results may be obtained if assumptions made with regard to the annual average mileage for these vehicles were changed.439 Diesel full size/midi bus Æ plug-in-diesel hybrid full size/midi bus -304.275 Diesel car Æ petrol plug-in-hybrid car -6. vans and minibuses and the “urban” scenario for full size / midi-buses as provided in the Buyer’s Guide and the Cost of Ownership Calculator.

01 Petrol van Æ petrol plug-in-hybrid van -0.12 Diesel car Æ diesel hybrid car -0. the ranking of options varies depending on whether the analysis is undertaken on a per vehicle basis or assuming that 10% of the fleet are switched to these newer technologies. The benefits are based on the damage costs of climate change. a reduction of 2. In the best case scenario presented in Table 4.05 million tonnes of CO2 could be achieved over a ten-year period.17 Diesel car Æ petrol plug-in-hybrid car Diesel van Æ petrol plug-in-hybrid van -0.03 Petrol car Æ diesel hybrid car -0.4.1b: Rank ordering of options in terms of CO2 reductions based on 10% of the fleet switching Conversion Change in CO2 emissions (Mtonnes) -2.30 Diesel car Æ battery electric car Diesel van Æ diesel hybrid van -0. In both cases.31 -0. please see Section 6.2 Ranking of options based on benefit to cost ratio In addition to ranking the CO2 emission benefits associated with BEVs. Again. the data presented relates to the “average” scenario as provided 27 For further information on the SCC.02 Petrol van Æ battery electric van -0.76 Petrol car Æ petrol hybrid car Diesel van Æ battery electric van -0.01 Petrol van Æ diesel hybrid van -0. plug-in-hybrids and diesel hybrids. Cars rank lower using this approach because of their relatively small contribution to CO2 emissions on a per vehicle basis. These are usually referred to as the social cost of carbon (SCC) and can be used to assess the economic benefits of climate change policy or the economic impacts of greenhouse gas emissions27. On an annual basis.14 -0.24 Diesel full size/midi bus Æ Diesel plug-in-hybrid full size/midi bus -0. 3.00 Diesel van Æ petrol hybrid van +0.01 Petrol van Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid van -0.74 Diesel full size/midi bus Æ battery electric full size/midi bus -0.05 Petrol car Æ battery electric car -1.08 Diesel car Æ petrol hybrid car -0.19 Diesel car Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid car Diesel full size/midi bus Æ diesel hybrid full size/midi bus -0.33 Diesel van Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid van -0.6.00 Petrol van Æ petrol hybrid van -0. If the second approach is followed and vehicles are ranked on the emission reductions achievable by switching 10% of the fleet.44 Petrol car Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid car -1.31 Petrol car Æ petrol plug-in-hybrid car -1. this amounts to a reduction in road transport CO2 emissions of approximately 1. For example the first row refers to 10% of the petrol car fleet switching to battery cars and the second row refers to the impact of 10% of petrol cars switching to diesel plug-in-hybrids.Table 4. the options have been ranked using the benefit to cost ratio (BCR) methodology. This is due to the large number of cars in operation.03 Diesel minibus Æ diesel hybrid minibus -0. switching a diesel van to a petrol hybrid van ranks last and in fact leads to an increase in emissions over the ownership period. As can be seen from the tables.6 on pollutant damage costs. 53 .3% and a reduction in total CO2 emissions of approximately 0. HEVs and PHEVs.4% if assessed against the GAINS’ model predictions in 2010.1b above.04 Diesel minibus Æ battery electric minibus -0.09 Note: the results are independent of each other. On a per vehicle basis the largest CO2 reductions are achieved by switching full size/midi buses to battery electric.04 Diesel minibus Æ Diesel plug-in-hybrid minibus -0. then petrol cars switching to battery electric cars are ranked first.23 -0.4.

02 * No additional implementation costs therefore there are only monetary benefits and a BCR cannot be quantified The table shows that under the “average” scenario.05 Diesel van Æ battery electric van 0.04 Diesel car Æ battery electric car 0.04 Diesel minibus Æ battery electric minibus 0.22 Petrol car Æ petrol hybrid car 0. For other options.15 Diesel full size/midi bus Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid full size/midi bus 0.17 0.14 Diesel full size/midi bus Æ battery electric full size/midi bus Petrol car Æ diesel hybrid car 0.15 Diesel full size/midi bus Æ diesel hybrid full size/midi bus 0. It should be noted that because there are no net implementation costs associated with some options (i.2: Rank ordering of options based on the benefit to cost ratio Conversion Benefit to cost ratio Petrol van Æ petrol hybrid van Unquantifiable but high * Petrol van Æ diesel hybrid van Unquantifiable but high * Diesel van Æ diesel hybrid van 0.04 0. by switching petrol vans to the hybrid options.13 Diesel minibus Æ diesel hybrid minibus Petrol van Æ battery electric van 0. Switching from a diesel van to a petrol hybrid van has a negative BCR as under this scenario. 54 .77 Petrol van Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid van 0. In effect.11 Diesel car Æ petrol hybrid car 0.13 0.in the Buyer’s Guide and the Cost of Ownership Calculator.04 Diesel van Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid van 0.08 Petrol car Æ petrol plug-in-hybrid car 0.01 Diesel van Æ petrol hybrid van -0.04 Petrol car Æ battery electric car 0.4.05 Diesel car Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid car 0.06 Diesel car Æ petrol plug-in-hybrid car 0.2 below.e. the BCR couldn’t be quantified. CO2 emissions actually increase.07 Petrol car Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid car 0.10 Diesel car Æ diesel hybrid car 0. The result of this analysis is presented in Table 4. total capital and operating costs are lower than the conventional petrol or diesel equivalent).04 Diesel minibus Æ diesel plug-in-hybrid Diesel van Æ petrol plug-in-hybrid van 0.09 Petrol van Æ petrol plug-in-hybrid van 0. the implementation costs significantly outweigh the monetary value of the CO2 emissions benefits that could be achieved.4. there are no costs and only benefits for these options and hence a ratio cannot be defined. Table 4. there are no additional costs involved in achieving the CO2 emission benefits.

the following conclusions have been made: • • • On a per vehicle basis. there are few large size / midi electric buses in operation and no plug-in-hybrid buses available for sale in Ireland. The most cost-effective options are to switch conventional petrol vans to either petrol or diesel hybrids. plug-in-hybrid or hybrid vehicles. These switches lead to cost savings and CO2 savings and hence lead to a high benefit to cost ratio. the largest CO2 emission reductions can be achieved by switching full size / midi buses to battery electric. Therefore. Based on the results obtained from this work. then the most beneficial in terms of CO2 emission reductions is to switch petrol cars to battery electric cars. at the current time. van or bus fleet was going to be switched. However. these would both have cost implications. switching full size/midi buses to hybrids is the most appropriate substitute to make (if costs are disregarded) at the present time. The second most beneficial switch is from petrol cars to diesel hybrid cars. 55 .3. If 10% of either the car.7 Summary of findings The ranking of CO2 reductions and the benefit to cost ratio carried out for this study has allowed the different options to be assessed. However.

Once plugged in. The paddle is one winding of a transformer. while the other is built into the car. When the paddle is inserted it completes a magnetic circuit which provides power to the battery pack.1 Technology options available for battery recharging There are two methods in which a vehicle can be charged28. 1) Conductive coupling – this is a direct electrical connection and might be as simple as plugging a mains lead into a weatherproof socket through special high capacity cables with connectors to protect the user from high voltages. This is based on the average tariff of ESB Customer Supply.600 and €2.500 miles (assuming that 80% of the time the battery is charged overnight). when the battery is charged the charger converts the AC to a DC and supplies it to the battery at the correct voltage so that the motor and wheels receive the correct amount of power. although interlocks can make conductive coupling nearly as safe. Energia and Airtricity.5 cents/kWh for general domestic usage and 7 cents per kWh for night saver rate. however this will change from the 1st November 2007 when there will be one price for all providers.html 56 . 4. running a petrol and diesel car the same distance would cost around €2.4 Battery charging and patterns of energy use This section is split into two parts: an identification of the technology options available for vehicle battery recharging and associated charging regimes and costs and the patterns of energy use as required by fleet operators. 28 29 Wikipedia http://en. AC motors power some electric vehicles and in this case the DC from the battery must be reconverted to AC by an “inverter”. Electricity prices at present vary by provider. The major advantage of the inductive approach is that there is no possibility of electrocution as there are no exposed conductors. The SEM will be a gross pool market into which all electricity generated or imported onto the island of Ireland must be sold and from which all wholesale electricity for consumption on or export from the island of Ireland must be purchased.org/electric.wikipedia. An electronic device called a “controller” does this29. the electricity costs for recharging the battery amount to approximately €760. The advantage of conductive coupling equipment is that it is lower in cost and much more efficient due to the lower number of components that are required. A special ‘paddle’ is inserted into a slot on the car. Details from the cost of ownership calculator show that over a one-year period for a battery-electric car travelling approximately 10.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle IEA – hybrid and electric vehicle implementing agreement http://www. a battery can only store direct current (DC). electricity from the grid is supplied in the form of an alternating current (AC). The Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) and the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation (NIAER) are working together to provide a single electricity market (SEM) for the island of Ireland. In this scenario. However. The difference in costs between day and night usage show that there are substantial savings that can be made by recharging battery electric vehicles over night. Further information on the costs of battery charging can be obtained from the Cost of Ownership calculator. Therefore.2 Charging regime and costs The current electricity price in Ireland is approximately 14.ieahev.100 respectively in fuel costs. 2) Inductive coupling. 4.

250 Average time away from base Vehicle type Car Vans Mini-buses Large buses 4. 4.007 3.1 Range driven from base: Vehicle type Car Vans Mini-buses Large buses 4.2 Car Vans Mini-buses Large buses Total number of vehicles in responses from fleet operators 1.480 6 2. A summary of the information provided is presented in the following sections.620 Average daily mileage 10 . Cork City Council.3.40 10 .3 Total number of vehicles in responses from fleet operators 1.5 – 18 hours Do vehicles operate to predictable routes? Vehicle type Car Vans Mini-buses Large buses Total number of vehicles in responses from fleet operators 1. Cork County Council. Dublin Bus. .007 3. Eircom.3. Twenty-two vehicle fleet operators were contacted to ascertain operational statistics so that an assessment could be made as to whether BEVs and PHEVs would be suitable. although in some cases these were limited in nature.4.007 3.460 40 5 . No or Some of the fleet operates to predictable routes Some Some Some Predominately yes.480 6 2.620 Total number of vehicles in responses from fleet operators 1.3.250 40 – 460 40 .620 57 Yes.620 Hours away from base 6 – 8 hours 2 – 8 hours Varies 2.3.480 6 2. Responses were received from eight fleet operators. JJ Kavanagh.007 3.40 12 – 250 5 .4 Range of mileage for distance driven from base Average daily mileage Vehicle type 4. Bus Eireann and Fingal County Council.3 Patterns of energy usage data Energy usage data is required so that further work can be conducted in the future on the electricity supply implications and the associated patterns of energy demand.480 6 2. The operators that provided information were: Dublin City Council.

4. The Ebus transit shuttle. Although only a small sample of operators responded to the questionnaire. JJ Kavanagh and Bus Eireann. manufactured in California has an operational range of 60 – 90 miles and therefore it appears from the data collected. in this instance the survey undertaken was very limited.5 Are vehicles used during the day or night? Vehicle type Car Vans Mini-buses Large buses Total number of vehicles in responses from fleet operators 1. that this distance is beyond that often required by operators.620 Day or night Day Day Day Predominately day The survey responses showed that buses operate to the most predictable routes and in some instances only travel short distances (5 miles) before returning to base where in theory they could have their batteries re-charged.480 6 2. The small number of minibuses that were included in the survey showed that distances travelled tended to be similar to large buses but that they operated on less defined routes and therefore battery recharging may pose more of a problem. From this it can be inferred that battery electric cars/vans or plug-in hybrid electric cars/vans could also be used in some cases.3. The average mileage driven from base for passenger cars and vans was found to be around 10 to 40 miles. 58 . the bus movement data collected is thought to be representative of the Irish bus fleet due to obtaining responses from large bus operators such as Dublin bus. The bus operators surveyed operate predominately during the day meaning that recharging could take place during the night leading to cheaper operational costs. so this may not be representative of the average fleet in Ireland.007 3. It is anticipated that fast charging would need to be utilised as the total daily distance exceeds the distance driven from base by a large amount implying that many trips are undertaken in a day. However. Many of the smaller BEVs such as the Reva G-Wiz have a range of around 30 to 60 miles whilst the Micro-Vett Porter and Modec vans have a range of between 45 and 100 miles.

The dataset was also cross-checked for consistency with more recent information gathered on hybrid and electric vehicles for this study. and a set of end-user energy demands.1.0978 5. Rob Winkel. 31 The VCA database of new car CO2 and fuel consumption is available online at: http://www.00143 0.50 1354 70.1. The model essentially calculates the least-cost way across the entire energy system of achieving the end-user demands.nl/VM/EST/publicaties/Comparison%20Conventional%20and%20hybrid%20Vehicles. This dataset was verified with government and industry stakeholders.0904 0.60 Fuel Cycle emissions. kg[pollutant]/GJ CO 0. Available at: http://www.org.1 Fuel properties and emission factors for petrol and diesel Energy density (Net CV) Fuel Diesel Petrol GJ/tonne 43.15 9. values were estimated for the purposes of this work by scaling van data to the difference between buses and HGVs. the corresponding urban and extra-urban vehicle efficiencies were estimated from their average relative deviations from the combined cycle figures for the respective technologies contained in the UK’s Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) dataset of car fuel consumption and CO2 for all new car models available in the UK31.Tailpipe 5.automotive. Because minibuses were not explicitly covered in the MARKAL model dataset.2 Air quality pollutants Emissions of air quality pollutants (CO. tax and maintenance) Running costs (energy) Total cost (over ownership period) Increased cost compared to petrol car Cost per tonne of CO2 saved We consider these in turn below 5. diesel and HEV technologies. 2002 (TNO-paper VM 0208).tno.e.0047 0.pdf 59 .0392 0.93 7. Erik van den Tillaart.1 In-Use Emissions .1. NOx and PM) have been estimated for conventional petrol and diesel vehicles using data from the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) 30 The MARKAL (standing for MARKet ALlocation) energy model is a bottom-up model consisting of detailed datasets on current and future technologies (with costs and efficiency and other performance parameters).00188 SOx 0. Jacob Eelkema and Richard Smokers from TNO Automotive. This was used in policy analysis for the UK’s 2006 Energy Review and 2007 Energy White Paper (EWP). Proceedings 19th International Battery.vcacarfueldata. For BEVs the relative efficiencies of urban and extra-urban cycles were estimated based on information from a study by TNO (2002)32. For petrol.uk/downloads/ 32 Comparative Assessment of Fuel Consumption for Conventional and Hybrid Vehicles.0053 VOC 0. Korea.2137 NOx 0.1 CO2 The vehicle technology efficiencies (base combined cycle average) in MJ/km (and costs) for cars. Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium (EVS 19).0448 PM 0. vans and buses are based on the dataset developed in 2006 to update the transport module of the UK MARKAL energy model30.39 44.0811 0.5 Data Sources and Assumptions This section examines data sources and assumptions used in the buyer’s guide and the cost of ownership calculator The Buyer’s guide and cost of ownership calculator provides information on: • • • • • • • • • In-use emissions – tailpipe (CO2 + air quality pollutants) In-use emissions – fuel cycle (CO2 + air quality pollutants) Vehicle production – recycling and disposal (CO2 + air quality pollutants) Capital costs (after discount and including resale) Running costs (non-energy i. Table 5. The model is supported by the IEA and has widespread international use.69 Physical Carbon intensity density (kgCO2/GJ) Litres/tonne Tailpipe Fuel Cycle 1203 72. VOCs.

1 126. CONCAWE.cec.9 3. as presented in Table 5. 60 .5 55. Emissions per kilometre are then calculated from the fuel consumption of different vehicles.7 609. Lewis.1 126. In the absence of other data sources. This study provided both fuel consumption and estimated emissions from power sources (taking into account new abatement technologies) annually from 2006 to 2010. Table 5.jrc.int/WTW 35 EC MEET Project Deliverable 20.7 120.5 9. petrol.for new Euro IV compliant cars.9 0. For HEVs and PHEVs running on petrol and diesel we have assumed a reduction in emissions of NOx and PM for the urban drive cycle only – summarised in Table 5.1.0 7. Tailpipe emissions of SO2 were estimated on the basis of fuel consumption and sulphurfree fuel (<10ppm sulphur) for simplicity. as these are more commonly the battery of choice for new BEVs.0 3. 34 Well-To-Wheels Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context. For the individual years post 2010.6 32. ETSU.3 42.2 NOx 37.3 597. Version 2c.2 0. Report for the Dept of Environment. May 2007.6 3. 1997).2: Assumptions on reductions of urban tailpipe emissions of NOx and Particulate Matter (PM) for hybrid electric vehicles Petrol hybrid Diesel hybrid 5.1 5.Fuel Cycle In-use fuel cycle emissions are directly dependent on the quantity of fuel/energy used. diesel).3 126.0 4.3a: Material composition of the seven normalised vehicle technology types Composition (kg) Ferrous Composites Aluminium Copper Zinc Lead Magnesium Petrol 599.0 10. Well-To-Wheels Report. ‘Fuel and Energy Production Emission Factors’ (C.A. where data was not available from this study.2 3. Heritage and Local Government. fuel cycle emissions of air quality pollutants (CO. vans and buses.9 3. Available at: http://ies.2) and on the material composition of the different battery types (in Table 6. SOx and PM) were taken from the European Commission funded project “Methodologies for estimating air pollutant emissions from transport (MEET 1997)35.6 32. based on the figures from Ecolane (2006).3a.3 Vehicle Production and Recycling and Disposal For the life-cycle analysis. Feb 2007.5 9. as this fuel already accounts for more than 30% of Irelands current supply and will be mandatory for all road vehicles from 2009.1 8.7 609.4 8. This section summarises the data sources used to derive emission factors per unit of energy for the different fuels (electricity.8 597.0 48. For BEVs we have recalculated values based on a Lithium ion battery pack. The emission factors are summarised in Table 6.5% 80% PM 0% 92% In-Use Emissions .1 3 3.7 120. This allowed the grams of a pollutant per KWh of energy supplied to be estimated for the years identified above.0 18. Petrol and diesel Greenhouse gas emissions (in kg CO2 equivalents) were taken from the JRC (2007) Well-to-Wheels study34. and then for 2015 and 2020. we have estimated the normalised material composition for the different vehicle types.7 5 7. AEA Technology. EUCAR.2 8.0 0. The recalculation was made on the basis of information on the relative specific energies of the different battery types compared to lead-acid batteries (in Error! Reference source not found.7 4.5 31.0 0.2 HEV Petrol HEV Diesel PHEV Petrol PHEV Diesel Dedicated Diesel (NiMH) (NiMH) (Li-ion) (Li-ion) BEV (Li-ion) 611.1 5.8 340.1.2. Table 5.1.1 5.0 0.5 4.4 0.eu.0 0.2.3a). EC JRC.0 33 Analysis of emissions from the power generation sector. AEA Energy & Environment.0 0.2. VOC. the estimated emissions have been interpolated from the data provided.1 31. NOx. Electricity The future electricity mix was taken from AEA’s analysis of projected emissions from the power generation sector33.

0 74.9% 2.2% 2.0% 11.4% 0.0% 12.0% 10.8 30. These can be quite substantial (up to 95% saving for Aluminium) and therefore can significantly reduce the overall impact.4 44.2 115.3% 3.8 26.2% 2. M.4 59.7 28. The emissions from production and recycling/disposal of Li-ion batteries were therefore also estimated from their component materials 36 http://www. the emissions from manufacturing the battery (kg/kg battery).8% 56.6 12. but this was the best data which could be found.0% 3. This additional data helped fill gaps for some of the pollutants and materials for production emissions as well as providing additional data on the emissions/savings due to recycling of different materials.8% 3.0% 11.2% 0. The work focused on one specific battery from each of the systems and the results were representative of these particular batteries and not of the battery systems to which they belong.0% 2.0% 4.0 0.0% 5. (1999).3% 0.3% 12.0% 15.4 119.2 115.0% 0.0 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 6. “Life cycle assessment of five batteries for electric vehicles under different charging regimes.3% 0. the energy required for recycling the battery (MJ/kg battery). and the emissions from recycling the battery (kg/kg battery).0% 15.1% 4. the report provided data on the energy requirements for manufacturing the battery (in MJ/kg battery).0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0 158.1% 2.0 12. The glass would be used for making bottles and glasses as opposed to being used for flat glass again.6 30.7 119.0% 4.5 27.1% 0.1% 0.0 0.1% 3. it is crushed and sold to the glass making industry. 37 38 61 .4% 1.0 10.1% 0.9% 0.0% 11.1% 0.6 30.3 27.9% 2.9% 0.0 0.7% 3. discussed below).2 9.0% 11.2% 2.nl/simapro Berryman (www.2 0.7 23.6 26.7 59. Glass Because data on the energy used to produce or recycle toughened or laminated glass were not available.0% 0.5% 4.6 42.6% 3.37 a glass recycling company.0% 0.4% 0. According to Berryman.7% 1.4% 0.9% 0.0% 15.3% 0.3% 0.0% 11. data for flat glass from the Ecoinvent database was used as a proxy. was therefore based on a life cycle assessment report on batteries for electric vehicles38.4 148.2 27.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% 0.2 60.3 27.4 119.berryman-uk.8 25. At this point the process of recycling is the same as that for non-laminated flat glass.9% 0.9% 1. After the glass is recovered. Batteries The SimaPro® tool only contained data on the production of small consumer size batteries.0% 4.5 8.2% 9.4% 0.9% 3. Data for lithium ion batteries in SimaPro® is for a small ‘AA’ size battery and only for production emissions. Rantik.7% 0.9% 0.4% 0.7 23.2% 0.6% 2.5 31.5% 61.2% 0.4 74.5 40.1% 3.9% 0.2% 57.0% 12.9 0 0. Data on recycling for Nickel-Metal Hydride (Ni-MH) batteries.1 30. The data was entered into SimaPro® to obtain total emissions from manufacturing and recycling the batteries.3% 61.0 154.pre.3% 0.co.8% 6.0% 7.1% 1. thus.5 31. laminated and toughened glass can be recycled.9% 2.9% 13.3% 0.8% 34. though separating the laminate from the glass does add an extra step (and cost) to the process. For Ni-MH batteries.0% HEV Petrol HEV Diesel PHEV Petrol PHEV Diesel Dedicated (NiMH) (NiMH) (Li-ion) (Li-ion) BEV (Li-ion) 9.5 8.3% 2.6% 2.uk).9% 0.0% 7.5 89.9% 0.5% 1.4 60.8% 0.7% 3.8% 4.3% 0.Composition (kg) Nickel Li-ion Plastics Rubber Glass Fluids Other Ferrous Composites Aluminium Copper Zinc Lead Magnesium Nickel Li-ion Plastics Rubber Glass Fluids Other Petrol Diesel 0 0.” Chalmers University of Technology.4 41.1% The data from Ecolane (2006) on production emissions per kg of the different materials was supplemented with additional data from the SimaPro® lifecycle analysis software tool36 (with the exception of glass and batteries. emissions for recycling flat glass have been used as a proxy.

3. Environmental impact A study presented at the 2006 International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering (LCE. See Box 1 in Section 2. 2006) evaluated the relative life cycle environmental impact of a range of rechargeable battery technologies. The results clearly show that Li-ion and NaNiCl (Zebra) batteries offer significant environmental benefits over conventional Pb-acid. [From LCE2006 (2006)] 62 .2 for further information on battery types. Another principal conclusion of the LCE (2006) study was that the impacts of the assembly and production phases are compensated to a significant extent when collection and recycling of the batteries is efficient and performed on a large scale.3b and used to generate emission factors for recycling/disposal consistent with the production data already in SimaPro®. NiCd and NiMH technologies. Figure 6.3: Environmental impact (in Eco-indicator points) of the assessed technologies.according to Table 5. A summary of the results of this analysis is presented in Figure 6. including the losses due to battery masses and to battery efficiencies during use. using the SimaPro® LCA software and the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method Eco-indicator 99.

Chalmers University of Technology. For the purposes of this work it is believed the current approximation is reasonable.0% 15. however there is no quantitative information available to make an adjustment.5% 5. Table 5.0% 16. vans and minibuses and buses. Jonathan G. The percentage of recycling of different materials in end of life vehicles was estimated primarily based on information from the Ecolane (2006) report on the degree of recycling so that the total rate complied with the minimum of 80%.0% 100% Sources: Based on information from CUT (1999)39 and Schexnayder et al40 The ‘End of Life Vehicles Directive’ (or ELV Directive) .2000/53/EC – has required since 2006 that a minimum of 80% of vehicles should be reused or recycled.3b: Material content of different types of rechargeable battery Material Lead Nickel Lithium Copper Cobalt or Manganese Aluminium Steel Plastic Water. 1999. Prepared by Susan M. It was assumed these percentages for the different materials were roughly consistent across the different vehicle technology types.0% 28.5% 100% 43. Rajive Dhingra1. Overly1. Peretz1. Greg Waidley1.0% 9.0% 13. The average vehicle weights in Table 5. In reality there will be variation in the relative proportions of different materials for different vehicles. Sujit Das2. 2 = Oak Ridge National Laboratory 63 .5% 27. 40 “Environmental Evaluation of New Generation Vehicles and Vehicle Components”. December 2001.5% 8.0% 3.0% 100% 1. Bruce E.0% 8. 39 Life cycle assessment of five batteries for electric vehicles under different charging regimes.Table 5.3d were used to estimate the total production and disposal emissions (in kg) of different pollutants for the different vehicle technologies and body types – the results for cars are presented in Table 5.3e. Jean H.0% NiMH Li-ion 26.5% 8. Michail Rantik. acid/alkali Other Total Pb-acid 61.5% 26. Davis1. Gary A. Schexnayder1.3c: Material Ferrous Composites Aluminium Copper Zinc Lead Magnesium Nickel Li-ion Plastics Rubber Glass Assumed recycling rates of different materials and the resulting total rate of recycling for the different vehicle technology types % Recycled 98% 90% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 80% 60% 60% 40% Vehicle type Petrol Diesel HEV Petrol HEV Diesel PHEV Petrol PHEV Diesel Dedicated BEV Resulting % Recycled 80% 81% 87% 88% 86% 87% 81% It was assumed the total emissions for different vehicle body types scaled up directly according to the average vehicle’s unladen weight in the absence of more specific information on the variation in proportions of different materials between cars. Tonn2. 1 = University of Tennessee—Knoxville.

13 4.22 5.21 0.145 Recycling/disposal emissions Kg Petrol Diesel HEV Petrol HEV Diesel PHEV Petrol PHEV Diesel Dedicated BEV CO2 equivalent CO HC NOx PM SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O -1564 -28. i.96 -1496 -2. kg Table 5.93 0.13 0.64 52.91 -4.16 0.52 -3.3d: Assumed average weights of different vehicle types Vehicle average unladen weight.17 -5.41 -3.77 12.05 0.88 -0.04 6742 7.97 5729 7.53 11.75 49.01 3637 6.61 0.65 7.21 7.92 -2. Minibuses were not explicitly covered in the MARKAL model dataset and therefore new values had to be estimated for the purposes of this work.61 5750 7.59 10.03 -0.30 -3.55 -1432 -2. The dataset was also cross-checked for consistency with more recent information gathered for this study.Note.05 3.66 -1294 -3.75 0.66 3996 3.108 4102 8.31 -4.14 7.113 4115 8.76 44.94 0.24 5.98 -3.49 -3.95 6.24 74.75 6.68 3922 3.80 0.30 0.28 6.87 4.23 0. Table 5.89 -3.19 -2.39 -4.15 4.05 -2.57 4.26 6.05 -3.24 1.79 45.87 -3.39 0.700 2.67 4.4 CO2 equivalent CO HC NOx PM SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O 2237 21.045 Net emissions Kg Petrol Diesel HEV Petrol HEV Diesel PHEV Petrol PHEV Diesel Dedicated BEV 5.35 -3.76 77.90 -0.48 5109 7.63 4.68 -0.93 6.77 -1027 -3.31 -4.75 -0.30 -2.32 0.130 5291 36. the Recycling/disposal emissions in Table 5.40 10.74 4008 3.94 49.e.00 9.73 1.19 4.92 50.200 10.025 -1495 -28.022 -1189 -27.62 53.72 4082 3.112 4188 8.22 5.97 0.52 -2.3e are net emissions.80 -3.82 -0.87 -1742 -3.000 Emissions attributable to production and recycling of materials in a typical passenger car Production emissions Kg Petrol Diesel HEV Petrol HEV Diesel PHEV Petrol PHEV Diesel Dedicated BEV CO2 equivalent CO HC NOx PM SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O 3800 49. In most cases the figures are therefore negative as recycling of the materials results in fewer emissions than the production of raw materials.36 0. Renault and Toyota.76 4.59 -1.17 4.116 5562 36.3e: Minibus Bus Car Van 1.54 9.81 -0.35 2. This increase was estimated on the basis of a comparison of van and minibus model prices from Ford.37 3616 6.13 -4.40 2120 3.04 -2.18 -1092 -3.17 -2. vans and buses are based on the dataset developed in 2006 to update the transport module of the UK MARKAL energy model used in policy analysis for the UK’s 2006 Energy Review and 2007 Energy White Paper (EWP).046 -1908 -28.38 5448 3.099 Capital Costs The base capital cost (no taxes) by vehicle type and technology for cars. the emissions resulting from recycling minus the emissions from using new raw materials.85 5088 7.85 16.14 -3.116 4029 8.73 48.21 1.14 -4.164 5954 38.104 2322 21.38 8.129 3817 49.06 7.35 9.400 1.85 4.71 7.46 2205 3.049 -1389 -17.18 7.049 -1120 -28.76 1. These minibus capital costs were calculated to be 75% higher than the values used for vans.43 2. This dataset was verified with government and industry stakeholders.34 0.32 -4.29 -1807 -4.162 5308 36.28 -4.165 6951 54.54 4.052 -1839 -29.162 5937 37.81 9.83 17. 64 .55 12.

1a are assumed to be consistent across all vehicle types in the absence of other information.5 tonnes for other vehicles For the average car we have assumed the 25% rate applies.co.4.uk/vans/ 65 .5% is applied for every 1.4.3% 84. 2007. for vans the 13% rate applies and for buses and minibuses the € 50 rate.4% 79. PHEV and BEV cars and vans – this is a 50% reduction in VRT.1a: Assumed basic (undiscounted) capital depreciation per period since new Years since initiation Period reduction (basic) Cumulative depreciation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11+ 30% 26% 22% 19% 16% 14% 12% 11% 10% 9.3% Table 5. Since hybrid and electric vehicles are new to the marketplace and the technology is changing rapidly. The Irish government’s test discount rate of 5% has been applied to the depreciation calculations. Table 5. an adjustment factor of 0. The ‘HEV Cost Calculator Tool’ is available at: http://www.php 42 Information is available online on second hand van prices at: http://www. The resulting period depreciation rates (undiscounted) presented in Table 5. VRT in Ireland is chargeable upon registration of a motor vehicle. A comparison of the rates of depreciation for hybrid vehicles and conventional equivalents from the US DoE’s online ‘HEV Cost Calculator Tool’41 revealed no significant differences in the relative depreciation rates.1b.Value added tax (VAT at 21% in Ireland) and Vehicle Registration Tax (VRT) are added to the ex-tax capital costs to give the final price.9% 86.6% 67. This is calculated as a percentage of the expected retail price (which would already include VAT).4. must be registered with the revenue commissioners.1 Depreciation In order to make estimates of the cost of ownership for periods shorter than the vehicle lifetime it was necessary to construct a rudimentary depreciation model based on vehicle age and mileage.5% 76. other than those brought in temporarily by visitors.000 Van Minibus Bus 14. The discounting model results were also compared/calibrated with figures on the second hand prices of vans from Parkers website 42 and found to have a reasonable level of consistency. The rudimentary depreciation model constructed for this study was based on the US DoE online calculator tool. 5.parkers.3% 72. We have also assumed that the current incentive for hybrid electric cars and vans applies for all HEV.000 US DoE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website.eere.5% 83.000 17. In addition. it is difficult to accurately predict what resale values will be several years in the future.gov/cleancities/hev/calculator/single.4.5% 9% 30% 48.000 miles deviation from the average annual mileage for the vehicle model type – presented in Table 5. taking into account small differences in the depreciation rates for the European market (where cars can depreciate by 60% first 3 years).energy. although this rate can be varied by the user in the calculation input assumptions. All motor vehicles in the Republic of Ireland.2% 59.2% 81.000 40.1b: Assumed average annual mileage by vehicle type Vehicle type Average annual mileage Car 9.4. The current rates of VRT are: 23% 25% 30% 13% € 50 for cars with an engine capacity below 1400cc for cars with an engine capacity between 1400cc and 1900cc for cars with an engine capacity above 1900cc for commercial vehicles with a gross vehicle weight below 3.

These price projections are consistent with the assumptions for emission factor projections outlined in an earlier section. c) Projections in future petrol and diesel price were estimated based on 80% of the relative change in crude oil prices (the proportion of the cost of diesel production that is refining cost is 20%).dti. Ireland. to produce estimated price projections. Minibuses were assumed to have double the operating/maintenance cost of vans for the purposes of this study. 2020 and 2050. e) Projected electricity prices have been estimated by scaling to be consistent with the assumptions on fuel generation mix used to calculate the emission factors (discussed in an earlier section).gov. available on DTI’s website at: http://www.02 €/litre and 1 €/litre respectively.5a: Assumed Rates of Duty on Motor Vehicles Annual motor tax. petrol and diesel. In developing the electricity price projections we have used the projections data in GWh from different generation types taken from AEA’s recent analysis of emissions from the Irish power generation sector (May 2007) – a report compiled for the Department of the Environment. July 2006. The base battery and maintenance costs (excluding VAT) by vehicle type and technology for cars. coal. heritage and local government (DEHLG).5 €cents/kWh and 7 €cents/kWh respectively for general domestic and night saver rate. Table 5.6 litres. We have assumed linear interpolation between the values for these years. For electricity: d) 2005 electricity prices are based on data from ILTP. July 2006)43. these have been estimated based upon assumptions in the future costs of oil. Heritage and Local Government. and on the variation in the electricity mix together with the costs of different types of power generation. 43 UEP 26: UK Energy and CO2 Emissions Projections. VAT) are taken as 1. taken to represent the intermediate value for the range of engine sizes The rate for goods vehicles not over 3 tonnes The rate for buses with 9 to 20 seats The rate for buses with 41 to 60 seats Fuel Prices In the absence of official long-term projections on prices for electricity. b) UEP 26 provides price assumptions for crude oil (price/bbl) and natural gas (price/therm) for 2005. vans and buses were again based on the MARKAL dataset. An outline of the methodology and assumptions made is provided in the following paragraphs. annual motor tax and annualised battery replacement costs.5 Non-Fuel Running Costs The non-fuel running costs were defined to include maintenance.5a are based on data from the Department of Environment.5. The assumed rates of annual motor tax in Ireland presented in Table 5. € Car 391 Van Minibus Bus 253 117 307 Notes The rate for cars with engine size 1. In doing so the following additional assumptions have been made: For petrol and diesel: a) Base year 2005 price for petrol and diesel fuel (including duty.5 to 1. These were used together with recent projected fossil fuel price assumptions provided in the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry (DTI’s) Updated Energy Projections from UEP 26 (UK Energy and CO2 Emissions Projections. and are taken to be 14. 2010.uk/energy/environment/projections/recent/page26391. natural gas. 2015.html 66 .

2 Air Quality (AQ) Externalities Recent European work in the area of air quality externalities by AEA includes work for DG Environment on the Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) Programme and on assessing the environmental. we follow the European Commission’s Impact Assessment Guidelines. January 2005.5 4.htm 67 . Future cost components for coal and gas generation were scaled relative to the projected change in coal and natural gas. http://www.7 Biomass 6. Published by Defra. but there is an increasing interest in the economic costs (social costs) of climate change.3 Onshore Wind 4.htm 47 BeTa-MethodEx version 2.4 Nuclear 4.3 7.5€/tC) per year according to recommended guidance45. 5. Published January 2006.1 2. In the CBA for this study. with an increase of £1/tC (=1. A recent review was undertaken (Watkiss et al. These are usually referred to as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Table 5.2 3. AEA. Traditionally the policy debate has focused on the costs of mitigation.6 Initial assumptions on the costs of different generation types Coal 3.html 45 UK Government Economic Service (GES) paper Estimating the Social Cost of Carbon Emissions http://www.2 3.uk/environment/airquality/strategy/index. We have based the specific values for each pollutant used in the cost of ownership calculator on those from the BeTaMethodEx Excel tool47 (developed under the MethodEx Project for EC DG Research). Evaluation of the air quality strategy.defra.1 2. It is the marginal global damage costs of carbon emissions. Alistair Hunt. VOCs.2 Gas 3. Cameron Hepburn.7 4. The central value assumed in the starting year of 2005 is £85/tC (= €33.1 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and the Social Cost of Carbon: The effects of global climate change are diverse and potentially very large.xls 48 Watkiss.uk/documents/taxation_work_and_welfare/taxation_and_the_environment/tax_env_GESWP140.4 5. with contributions from David Anthoff.cfm 46 Paul Watkiss. February 2007. social and economic impacts of the thematic strategy on the urban environment.9 5.8/tCO2).gov.g. 200646) and it is likely that a revised set of values will emerge later in 2007.defra.gov. 5.org/BeTa-Methodex%20v2.4 Pollutant Damage Costs The following paragraphs summarise the development/source of the damage costs used in the environment module calculations for Air Quality (AQ) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) pollutants. available at: http://www.f) The assumed 2005 and 2010 electricity generation costs for the different types are provided in Table 5. and damage to buildings.7 Offshore Wind 5.5b: Cents / KWh Base Low High 5. and make use of the air pollutant damage cost values for specific pollutants (e. and can be used to assess the economic benefits of climate change policy. Final Report to Defra.hmtreasury.gov. Chris Hope.9 3. The SCC values currently used in the cost of ownership calculator are based on those for use in policy appraisal across the UK Government.3 3.6.5b.uk/energy/sources/renewables/policy/government-renewable-energy-policy/renewables-innovationreview/page15308.methodex. Metroeconomica and the Institute of Occupational Medicine. and areas of 44 More information is available from DTI’s website at : http://www. Previous studies48 have shown that the damage costs associated with primary PM10 emissions vary very significantly with location. The Social Costs of Carbon (SCC) Review – Methodological Approaches for Using SCC Estimates in Policy Assessment. PM10) from the CAFE programme.6. This reflects the importance of PM10 as a local pollutant.4 6. and Richard Tol. Tom Downing. These damage cost values take into account the environmental impacts of air pollution including damage to human health. Note the UK Government Economic Service (GES) also recommended that these values should be subject to periodic review. damage to crops.dti. 2005. or the economic impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. www. NOx.gov. The Social Cost of Carbon is usually estimated as the net present value of climate change impacts over the next 100 years (or longer) of one additional tonne of carbon emitted to the atmosphere today.uk/environment/climatechange/carboncost/aeat-scc. Assumptions for renewables are based on figures from the UK DTI Renewables Innovation Review44. SO2.

6. CO is also potentially important for transport.g. 68 .79 Vehicle use categories From the information presented plus a literature review of current trends. Hence vehicles operating in urban areas are likely to have higher PM10 damage costs associated with them than the equivalent vehicles operating in rural areas.2: 4842 25356 5154 5154 13671 11321 33. A series of location specific PM10 emission factors were developed under the UK Government (Defra) analysis of air quality externalities in the UK and is presented in the Air Quality Strategy Review (AQSR). uniform damage costs that do not vary with location. we have scaled the UK location specific PM10 damage cost values to the difference between the average PM10 values for UK and Ireland from BeTa. A summary of the base 2005 year pollutant damage costs used for this study is provided in Table 5.2. urban areas) have higher damage costs. For the analysis here. and hence it is accepted practice to use single. The pollutant damage cost values are given in 2005 prices and the values for future years include an uplift for health of 2% (annual constant uplift). due to higher population weighted exposure per tonne of pollutant emitted. the following vehicle use categories were constructed and used in the Cost of Ownership calculator. etc) are precursors to secondary pollutants that form in the atmosphere over time. NOx. it is a good approximate approach for the purposes of the model. to estimate location specific Irish PM10 damage costs. Whilst this does not explicitly take into account variations in damage costs due to location.6. The other air pollutants included in this analysis (SO2.high population density (e. location is less important in determining the damage costs.7 PM (diesel ICE urban) PM (diesel ICE extra-urban) PM (electricity) PM (industrial production) PM (waste and recycling) CO2 equivalent NOx 679 3764 SOx 2005 damage costs in €/tonne 2. unit pollution values have been taken from a previous Defra Air Quality Evaluation48. 5. consistent with the latest UK IGCB guidance for appraisal. but it was not considered in the CAFE Guidelines so for this pollutant. For these pollutants.26 NMVOCs Base 2005 pollutant damage costs used in the cost of ownership calculator CO Table 5. This reflects the assumption that willingness to pay will rise in line with economic growth.

0% 17.000 40% 5% 60% 30% Average 10 5.0% 12.0% 10.000 40% 5% 30% 20% Notes: % recharge at night – this relates to BEV and PHEVs and is an estimate of the proportion of the electricity used from overnight charging of the vehicle (as opposed to regular / fast charging during the day). 69 High 10 5.000 30% 5% 60% 40% 9.0% Buses Low 10 5.0% 70.0% 15.000 10% 5% 30% 10% .000 40% 5% 60% 40% Minibuses Low High 15 5 5.500 25% 5% 80% 50% 8.0% 14.0% 5. so this figure represents an estimate of the proportion of total mileage that doesn’t go beyond this daily range.0% 25.0% Vans Low 15 5.000 40% 5% 60% 50% 25.000 25% 5% 80% 60% High 5 5.7: Vehicle use characteristics User categories Years of use Discount rate for calculations (%) Annual mileage % City driving miles % Biofuel % Recharge at night % distance running off grid electricity (for PHEV only) Cars Average 10 5. % of distance running off grid electricity – this relates to PHEV only. PHEVs will probably have an all-electric range limited to 25–50 kilometres (with remaining journey running on petrol / diesel).000 40% 5% 60% 50% High 5 5.0% Low 15 5.000 25% 5% 60% 30% Average 10 5.000 25% 5% 80% 30% Average 10 5.000 90% 5% 30% 30% 50.0% 30.Table 6.

Appendix 1
Introduction
Batteries in BEVs must be periodically recharged using electricity either in the home or at business
premises, where applicable. An alternative to recharging batteries is to exchange drained batteries
with fully charged batteries, where this facility exists. The time taken to charge a battery is limited
primarily by the capacity of the connection, rather than the battery characteristics. In Ireland, the
average household outlet is around 3 kilowatts. The main connection to a house might be able to
sustain 10 kilowatts if modifications are made. Assuming no energy loss in the charger, a ten-hour
charge from an average household outlet will put a maximum of 30 KWh of energy into a battery.
The charger has three key functions49:


Getting the charge into the battery (charging)
Optimising the charging rate (stabilising)
Knowing when to stop (terminating)

Once a battery is fully charged, the charging current has to be dissipated. This results in heat and
gases, which are bad for batteries. The aim is to detect when the battery is fully charged and to stop
the charging process before any damage is done. Detecting this cut off point and terminating the
charge is critical in preserving battery life. In simple chargers, this is when a predetermined upper
voltage limit is reached. This is particularly important for fast chargers where the danger of
overcharging is greater.
Charge efficiency
Charge efficiency is the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the energy removed from a battery
during discharge compared to the energy used during charging to restore the original capacity.
The charge efficiency is dependent on temperature amongst other factors with lower temperatures
resulting in reduced efficiency. The overall charge efficiency on a slow overnight charge for the
different battery types are provided in Table 2.2.2, Section 2.2.2. This ranges from 70% efficiency for a
nickel metal-hydride battery to over 90% for lithium-ion and NaNiCl batteries. The charge
characteristics of the three most common battery types used in BEVs are discussed below.
The charge and discharge current of a battery is measured in C-rate. A battery rated at 1C means that
a 1,000mAh50 battery would provide 1,000 Ma (milliamps) for one hour if discharged at a 1C rate. The
same battery discharged at 0.5C would run for 2 hours.
Nickel based batteries
For nickel-based batteries, in the initial 70% charge, the charge acceptance is close to 100%. The
battery remains cool as all the energy is absorbed. Currents of several times the C rating can be
applied without heat build up. Ultra fast chargers use this phenomenon to charge a battery to 70%
within minutes. Past 70% the battery loses the ability to accept charge and the pressure and
temperature increases. This is shown in Figure A1.1

49

http://www.mpoweruk.com/chargers.htm
mAh – milliampere-hour. This is a 1,000th of an ampere hour and is used to describe the energy charge that a battery will hold
and how long a device will run before it needs recharging.
50

70

Figure A1.1: Charge characteristics of a nickel-cadmium cell51

In an attempt to gain a few extra capacity points, some chargers apply a measured amount of
overcharge. The capacity gain is about 6%. The negative aspect of this is the shorter cycle life
Lithium-ion batteries
Lithium-ion batteries cannot be ‘super fast’ (less than 1 hour) charged. Instead the manufacturers
charging technique must be followed. Figure A1.2 shows the voltage and current as the lithium-ion
battery passes through the charging stages. Increasing the charge current does not reduce the
charge time by much. Although the voltage peak is reached quicker, the topping charge will take
longer. Fast charging (3 – 6 hours) eliminates Stage 2 and is ready at about 70% charge at the end of
stage 1. The topping charge typically takes twice as long as stage 152. Lithium-ion batteries are unable
to absorb overcharge and therefore are designed to limit the charge voltage and have pressure and
temperature sensors which if activated stop the charging process.

51
52

http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-11.htm The characteristics are similar to a nickel-metal hydride battery.
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-12.htm

71

Figure A1.2: Charge stages of a lithium-ion battery

Lead-acid batteries
Lead-acid batteries cannot be fully charged as quickly as nickel and lithium based batteries.
It takes 5 times as long to charge a lead acid battery as it does to discharge it; for nickel the ratio is 1:1
and for lithium-ion the ratio is around 1:253. The charging process is similar to lithium ion batteries. A
constant current is applied which raises the battery voltage to a preset level. Typically stage 1 takes
around 5 hours and at this point the battery will be 70% charged. During Stage 2 the current is
gradually reduced as the cell is being saturated. This stage takes another 5 hours and is an essential
stage as if omitted the battery would eventually lose the ability to fully charge. The final stage is the
‘float charge’, which compensates for the self-discharge (see Section 2.2.2). This is shown below.

53

http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-13.htm

72

the same battery discharges in approximately 5 hours. However on the other hand. would cause grid corrosion on the positive plate. a continually over-saturated condition however. the battery wants to be fully charged to get maximum capacity and avoid sulphation on the negative plate. please see Section 5. Further advancements to those discussed in previous sections have recently been made in the time required to re-charge batteries. 73 . For example. Setting the voltage limit is a compromise. Figure 2.com/documents/NanoSafeBackgrounder060920.pdf Website accessed July 2007. For information on the different charging options and methods available. The relationship is not exactly linear because some energy is lost due to internal losses and this is particularly the case with large loads. On one hand.altairnano. At 0. At 1C a 10Ah battery discharges in less than an hour.Figure A1. Discharge efficiency A battery can either be discharged at a low rate over a long time or at a higher rate over a shorter period of time.3: Charge stages of a lead acid battery The correct setting of the voltage limit is critical.2C. Altairnano claims that their nanosafe cell provides distinct advantages over other batteries in that they can be charged to over 80% in less than a minute54. 54 http://www. which results in venting and loss of electrolyte.2 below shows the discharge characteristics of a lead acid battery at various loads as expressed by the C rate. It also promotes gassing.

Figure A1.inel. This is known as the Peukert curve. This is particularly important for lead acid batteries.4: Typical discharge curves of a lead acid battery as a function of C rate55 The discharge voltage of lead acid batteries decreases in a rounded profile towards the period of cutoff.gov/fsev.org/electric.html Idaho National Laboratory http://avt.batteryuniversity.htm 74 . please see: • • 55 The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement on hybrid and electric vehicles http://www.ieahev.html http://www. whereas nickel and lithium based batteries have more of a steady voltage level throughout the discharge period and then drop rapidly at the end of discharge. On a battery the intermittent load allows a level of recovery of the chemical reaction that produces electrical energy.2b below provides the effective cell capacity of a lead acid battery under a continuous discharge and an intermittent discharge. which operates most efficiently under this scenario. Batteries are stressed the most if allowed to discharge at a steady rate.5: The Peukert Curve55 For further information on battery electric vehicle technologies. Figure A1. Figure 2. This is the opposite of an internal combustion engine.com/partone-16a.

5 1.9 0.2.8 12.1 14.548 30.4b: Estimated emissions (Kg) arising from the production.828 3.3 2.876 13.0 22.4 Table 2.4a: Estimated emissions (Kg) arising from the production.2 4.4 11.1 0.8 86.0 36.6 0.9 3.1 68.8 2.237 38.0 0.4 45.8 0.4 57.4 1.5 0.6 36.2 2.0 3.9 3.1 0.3 6.2 0.215 65.5 0.3 40.1 14.0 21. Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions BEV 0 15.9 33.3 5.453 2.9 46.8 8.7 7.0 12.7 Diesel 26.908 0.4 21.7 0.2 99.0 0.8 2.491 33.6 47.6 1.8 6.4 1.0 13.1 5.0 0.2 14.803 4.425 3.738 1.4 24.0 20.5 49.0 3.1 40.3 Petrol 27.346 5.562 22. disposal and operating of a battery electric car.0 2.322 35.8 4.2 Diesel 30.Appendix 2 Emissions Performance Table 2.5 0.1 0.3 4.2 36.7 14. petrol car and diesel car under the “average” scenario.492 74.896 1. Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions BEV 0 17.2 79.9 4.3 39.9 3.708 18.1 75 Petrol 31.3 0.7 2.4 5.000 3.4 75.5 29.0 2.0 0.8 12.6 0.5 0.7 4.0 14.6 33.2.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 107.0 10.7 57.6 8.6 50.7 3. disposal and operating of a battery electric car.2 15.8 74.1 0.4 18. petrol car and diesel car under the “low use” scenario.0 24.8 50.0 1.1 97.1 81.708 0.8 0.4 0.129 2.1 34.907 12.2 2.2 .7 49.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 27.4 39.3 18.1 37.3 16.3 92.622 2.2 13.9 0.

9 21.7 12.6 3.4 0.0 61.2 2.2 1.7 65.3 3.6 26.0 8.3 1.4 44.0 55.7 112.113 0.754 26.854 12.6 2.4 0.2 25.6 1.7 0.5 89.8 25.5 15.877 2.1 VANS Table 2.5 0.0 14.9 0.4 87.2 4.788 2.0 76.5 24.4d: Estimated emissions (Kg) arising from the production.0 0.863 84.783 746 23.8 103.2 7.5 121.Table 2. petrol car and diesel car under the “average” scenario.274 71.0 0.579 0.955 774 21.8 10.2 27.259 1.0 0.8 Diesel 49.6 27.039 2.9 2.2 0.2 3.8 195.4 25.004 5.0 0.0 2. petrol car and diesel car under the “high use” scenario.5 13.4c: Estimated emissions (Kg) arising from the production.6 8.3 41.7 .0 3.9 1.0 12.7 6.1 0.5 1.7 4.1 54.1 0.4 0.0 205.2.6 0.8 35.6 76 Petrol 62.824 6.0 0.0 7.745 8.3 Petrol 19.1 0.6 1.1 16. disposal and operating of a battery electric car.2 0.0 5.4 Diesel 19.8 32.0 2.1 9.0 10.3 0.405 46.8 0.2 12.3 5.8 9.0 44.6 1.0 0.8 13.5 7. disposal and operating of a battery electric van.2 1.7 60.6 23.716 74.820 56.770 8.5 1.0 0.0 23.7 0.7 102.015 1.7 1.3 104.3 90.8 25.7 0.1 48.2.8 0. Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions BEV 0 10.8 10.3 28.9 9.0 17.5 0.4 73.7 0. Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions BEV 0 19.0 2.8 21.8 11.3 7.1 80.2 0.4 0.6 6.4 1.

0 0.8 105.6 41.4d: Estimated emissions (Kg) arising from the production.4 3.7 62.7 0.0 0.2 1.8 91.8 45.4e: Estimated emissions (Kg) arising from the production. petrol car and diesel car under the “low use” scenario.0 0.6 0.0 0.755 0.253 8.0 16.3 55.2. Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions BEV 0 19.6 61.6 65.9 7.9 25.4 91.410 48.2 59.2 2.5 6.4 73.7 107.8 8.9 23.9 35.0 175.7 100.8 4.8 10.0 77.2 4.9 5.5 0.2 3.0 0.Table 2.6 200. Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions BEV 0 17.996 2.7 105.3 1.8 10.9 Diesel 49.5 6.098 3.0 44.1 .607 5.7 7.9 3.2 12.5 Petrol 64.3 9. disposal and operating of a battery electric van.3 2.9 84.1 80.4 0.2 6.5 7.716 75.4 169.0 0.3 10. disposal and operating of a battery electric van.7 0.3 26.2 1.3 22.387 1.0 0.5 3.7 22.0 0.2 0.9 9.2 25.8 3.1 0.8 80.6 13.528 78.8 0.0 0.9 20.0 16.6 0.282 63.0 5.461 76.605 1.820 57.2.2 22.0 64.7 2.5 3.6 Table 2.5 4.101 2.4 44.358 63.2 1.1 84.7 0.664 4.000 6.0 77 Petrol 54.319 7.5 118.7 1.0 13.965 70.4 0.2 15.2 0.754 25.6 52.6 2.8 0.0 0.475 0.1 0.0 2.0 18.0 22.4 77.3 5.8 Diesel 42.1 47.3 103.377 20.0 209.8 12.7 2.0 13.2 90.3 0.3 3. petrol car and diesel car under the “high use” scenario.9 3.4 78.

6 7.0 0.133 6. Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions BEV 0 25.2 141.0 78 Diesel 62.6 103.1 22.3 5.2 112.2 0.5 144.2 1.438 3.081 2.3 13.2.0 65.0 .7 0.9 8.0 1.2 124.0 21.5 4.2 90.7 3.5 0.8 Table 2.0 1.8 6.4 29.6 9.650 72.1 0.2 6.6 34.700 104.7 12.1 77.6 5.9 13.9 79.6 5.1 116.0 8.0 Diesel 59.334 8.6 106.612 6.9 77.7 155.2 0.646 5.9 2.0 38.5 0.6 1.1 4.4h: Estimated emissions (Kg) arising from the production.8 12.3 0.4g: Estimated emissions (Kg) arising from the production. disposal and operating of a battery electric minibus and diesel bus under the “average” scenario.0 21.Minibus Table 2.6 0.4 20.647 98.8 13.8 22.2.4 0.1 33.4 33.6 19.2 1.2 31.827 29.3 38.0 1.7 98. disposal and operating of a battery electric minibus and diesel bus under the “low use” scenario.7 0.2 73.5 57.3 0.741 34.473 0.0 1.433 67.1 3.4 0.1 91. Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions BEV 0 23.0 0.6 12.0 17.075 0.8 69.0 17.0 57.9 118.

5 64.914 19.7 2.0 0.9 53.4i: Estimated emissions (Kg) arising from the production.482.2 0.Table 2.6 65.0 0.0 1.0 39.7 100.3 72.7 38.4 3.9 2.8 11.9 0.4 42.252 45.4 Midibus Table 2.1 59.3 572.3 9.9 39.0 0.3 3.214.2 104.1 23.3 28.4 6.0 0.6 2.487 64.0 1.580 11.8 238.0 174. Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions BEV 0 16.0 33.7 665.0 16.0 0.8 Diesel 43.0 19.2 356. Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions BEV 0 37.7 0.4j: Estimated emissions (Kg) arising from the production.3 1.8 20.647 2.1 86.561 0.1 0.3 1.452 0.1 493.7 208.5 780.7 2.9 22.6 12.2.965 26.217 49.1 0.1 0.1 29.3 549.480 4.6 0.891 536.7 20.5 0.8 354.0 79 Diesel 443.168 72.059 499.7 15.9 2.0 0.8 0. disposal and operating of a battery electric minibus and diesel bus under the “high use” scenario.2 20.3 2.4 1.2 19.4 .0 13.4 15.4 78.3 4.4 8.0 27.1 174.2.1 23.471 1.6 48. disposal and operating of a battery electric midi bus and diesel bus under the “urban” scenario.4 8.

9 310.4k: Estimated emissions (Kg) arising from the production.4l: Estimated emissions (Kg) arising from the production.1 0.513 69.6 0.0 61.7 736.0 174.7 100.2 Table 2.4 29.0 74.634 26.059 648.487 129.487 96.0 80 Diesel 674.2 357.2.2 43.3 2.3 129.8 38.666 599.0 91.1 59.4 89.7 354.6 29.547 26.8 226.452 11.5 966.934 592.1 174.9 750.2 354.1 0.6 15.3 2.7 20.3 59.6 .206.712.2 15.3 725.Table 2.1 15.0 22.1 174.9 25.6 37.0 0.7 215.0 3.866.9 835.2 362.121 0.9 1.074.0 0.3 100.8 22.2 13.4 65.1 38.5 0.0 3.4 Diesel 578.1 0.3 3.7 0.2 2.6 0.1 0.6 716. Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions BEV 0 102.7 737.3 832.0 174. disposal and operating of a battery electric midi bus and diesel bus under the “inter-urban” scenario.361 11.2 23.0 4.2 20.9 3.8 643. disposal and operating of a battery electric midi bus and diesel bus under the “express” scenario.154 59. Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions BEV 0 69.034 0.9 11.2 359.9 24.321.5 100.6 23.9 2.0 4.3 3.2.059 754.6 18.5 1.0 50.

322 35.467 4.4 76.039 2.3b: Estimated emissions (kg) arising from the production.3a: Estimated emissions (kg) arising from the production.0 59.1 3.6 6.1 66.5 89.1 Petrol 62.1 40.1 80.086 46.5 1.7 1.1 37.8 11.7 102.5 0.8 3.0 7.8 103.8 59.0 Diesel hybrid 23.4 73.5 49.Hybrid cars Table 2.1 0.1 0.5 68.8 4.2 23.907 5.7 9.0 8.3 0.2 Petrol 31.5 46.2 99.812 6.3.2 75.716 74.4 0.237 38.9 76.8 12.9 8.993 3.9 4.0 61.2 1.2 25.7 Table 2.0 Diesel hybrid 37.2 36.1 0.7 2.4 7.8 0.7 78.1 7.9 16.4 57.5 0.453 2.6 2.7 4.2 107.7 12.6 29.6 205.1 Diesel 49.4 45.3.7 0.7 60.210 3.3 6.425 3.8 2.5 9.863 84.2 81 .4 25.492 74.9 80.6 0.788 2.642 8.7 0.8 9.6 0.4 35.4 87.8 42.0 20.803 4.4 11. disposal and operating costs of a petrol and diesel hybrid car under the “average” scenario Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions Petrol hybrid 48.6 0.8 2.5 121.6 8.2 1.4 2.2 Diesel 30.7 1.5 46.188 30.5 13.7 34.9 76.9 20.988 2.7 6.4 111.2 2.004 5.2 1.0 3.0 1.3 41.7 57.1 5.8 195.7 0.8 6.7 4.2 36.9 83.9 3.876 13.7 2.2 17.3 3.102 32.3 2.0 94.1 97.3 2.9 47.2 2.1 0.5 15.7 84.6 26.1 54.8 65.2 14.985 68.6 1.129 2.0 0.0 21.473 62.1 0.450 4.3 7. disposal and operating costs of a petrol and diesel hybrid car under the “low use” scenario Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions Petrol hybrid 25.1 127.9 0.1 26.1 0.2 3.1 5.7 4.4 21.9 12.0 157.3 16.1 48.762 65.8 25.274 71.7 5.3 0.9 5.7 49.8 2.3 60.1 1.3 2.2 79.8 6.5 1.4 148.1 5.1 3.820 56.9 0.770 8.981 60.0 31.7 112.680 4.9 33.

7 2.9 47.4 25.4 7.6 1.6 1.7 102.7 82 .4 2.9 2.2 0.6 1.086 46.3.8 3.3 7.1 0.367 19.7 6.783 746 23.955 774 21.3 0.6 1.6 205.0 8.6 18.8 6.5 7.5 68.1 0.1 66.274 71.3c: Estimated emissions (kg) arising from the production.Table 2.907 5.0 55.7 16.6 34.7 0.9 20.3 60.6 29.3.1 Diesel 49.8 21.0 59.4 1.2 3.0 Diesel hybrid 37.0 2.1 VANS Table 2.1 80.2 0.0 61.1 1.7 0.3 0.9 1.8 13.1 3.1 7.8 25.6 2. disposal and operating costs of a petrol and diesel hybrid van under the “average” scenario Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions Petrol hybrid 48.6 0.7 9.0 16.0 3.4 76.6 8.2 2.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 7.5 0.863 84.2 1.6 0.4 21.8 0.3 41.2 25.3 3.3 28.8 10.7 1.992 1.2 8.877 2.7 1.7 112.5 9.4 0.770 8.756 2.542 1.812 6.1 54.0 31.9 76.1 0.6 1.039 2.8 32.1 Petrol 62.9 1.7 60.6 6.4 Petrol 19.5 121.6 26.0 1.1 10.3 3.788 2.4 87.2 2.2 1.8 9.1 3.0 0.4 148.2 38.6 1.156 1.473 62.8 42.2 27.3 16.405 46.1 0.8 35.9 20.0 0.9 39.7 1.4 111.6 0. disposal and operating costs of a petrol and diesel hybrid car under the “high use” scenario Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions Petrol hybrid 15.0 94.8 0.3 22.5 65.2 4.993 3.1 5.2 1.4 73.745 8.820 56.0 157.0 61.7 4.981 60.0 1.3 2.8 48.2 0.9 80.8 195.716 74.1 0.280 40.6 23.985 68.8 59.5 13.5 15.4 Diesel 19.6 51.1 48.0 2.2 7.2 23.396 17.8 103.7 5.5 89.930 5.1 0.4 0.6 27.1 1.7 8.1 16.015 1.680 4.0 23.1 127.004 5.2 8.3d: Estimated emissions (kg) arising from the production.7 44.8 11.7 Diesel hybrid 14.

1 0.4 9.2 5.4 60.9 3.9 84.086 46.0 155.396 56.167 58.3 2.831 5.7 22.4 3.4 60.0 84.1 84.9 23.3 3.1 1.9 57.2 76.7 2.543 39.6 41.251 3.101 2.5 0.319 7.459 2.7 20.9 35.1 0.5 41.887 2.0 46.0 64.2 4.528 78.4 73.1 0.0 65.0 7.3f: Estimated emissions (kg) arising from the production.1 5.7 1.7 3.4 109.1 1.5 0.410 48.5 0.387 1.8 3.9 3.2 1.6 0.639 64.6 200.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.7 105.Table 2.5 4.6 65.1 80.6 9.0 71.996 2.1 Diesel 49.8 0.3 20.0 0.491 51.2 2.3 10.2 25.9 72.3.6 2.8 30.8 91.6 61.2 1.4 169.7 6.2 15.4 41.3.3 26.7 107.2 1.2 6. disposal and operating costs of a petrol and diesel hybrid van under the “low” scenario Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions Petrol hybrid 48.7 6.4 37.2 0.3e: Estimated emissions (kg) arising from the production.716 75.6 Petrol 54.8 10.8 80.7 62.8 7.8 0.5 6.820 57.1 2.282 63.9 70.3 3.7 7.981 59.0 Diesel hybrid 33.4 77.358 63.3 59.3 22.5 3.7 21.0 0.0 29.7 0.8 8.4 78.2 1.5 3.9 7. disposal and operating costs of a petrol and diesel hybrid van under the “high” scenario Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions Petrol hybrid 43.3 2.3 1.664 4.6 Table 2.1 3.965 70.2 12.1 3.7 2.3 2.6 Diesel 42.607 5.1 5.3 55.5 52.1 3.1 83 .8 209.2 5.5 118.1 Petrol 64.9 18.5 7.1 47.6 13.7 100.9 3.1 3.4 30.0 0.286 6.3 0.6 2.7 1.3 57.5 6.875 58.1 126.5 84.253 8.1 131.5 89.461 76.8 105.0 58.4 91.2 1.3 9.8 8.605 1.8 12.9 25.0 136.0 Diesel hybrid 37.608 4.1 147.2 77.4 67.637 3.018 5.3 27.4 0.0 7.6 52.7 62.9 175.8 50.4 3.

0 111. disposal and operating costs of a diesel hybrid minibus under the “average” use scenario Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions Diesel hybrid 44.9 76.1 140.2 84 Diesel 62.959 4.6 7.3 5.1 33.1 91.8 2.433 67.388 53.3.8 69.4 0.9 9.8 6.829 6.3.0 12.298 73.2 0.8 52.3 52.2 141.4 67.9 7.8 6.3 49.8 22.2 0.6 1.9 77.7 Diesel 59.6 23.2 31.8 3.Minibuses Table 2.5 4.2 0.0 72.0 .7 0.6 19.4 2.0 102.8 12.4 33.438 3.9 2.2 112.9 25.7 155.6 9.2 0.7 3.081 2.612 6.2 9.2 1.9 13.6 54.5 0.6 84.8 3.369 77.2 78.561 4.2 73.700 104.1 0.8 9.8 Table 2.1 58. disposal and operating costs of a diesel hybrid minibus under the “low” use scenario Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions Diesel hybrid 46.5 144.7 98.350 4.7 12.581 58.2 124.3 13.2 90.8 13.3g: Estimated emissions (kg) arising from the production.2 6.9 1.2 1.650 72.9 93.6 103.9 8.133 6.647 98.1 110.6 72.0 65.9 2.9 4.6 106.7 8.3h: Estimated emissions (kg) arising from the production.

5 64. disposal and operating costs of a diesel hybrid minibus under the “high” use scenario Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions Diesel hybrid 32.6 40.252 45.3 1.3 28.482.214.3.6 2.6 12.0 69.3 572.8 11.3j: Estimated emissions (kg) arising from the production.Table 2.9 5.4 8.9 0.1 4.157 54.9 2.962 124.3 1.1 0.4 .1 493.4 78.4 2.6 548.2 47.1 23.4 3.4 8.4 Midibuses Table 2.6 0.1 Diesel 43.7 208.5 3.6 20.353 2.6 48.0 181.8 36.4 299.3 8.3 9.610 3.9 144.1 23.480 4.4 6.2 53.1 86.6 236.5 2.3.059 499.217 49.7 538.4 5.7 0.1 29.323 27.943 316.7 6.695 19.7 665.2 104.0 2.6 65.0 73.9 1.9 2.4 17.3i: Estimated emissions (kg) arising from the production.0 0.1 0.3 549.7 2.9 333.7 100.9 53.7 85 Diesel 443.4 721.4 14.7 20.471 1.1 59.9 0.580 11.891 536.3 2. disposal and operating costs of a diesel hybrid midibus under the “urban” use scenario Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions Diesel hybrid 269.4 39.3 26.5 780.7 27.7 17.194 38.168 72.3 60.8 238.2 48.1 401.

361 11.8 27.4 29.2 43.3 3.7 39.1 619.Table 2.4 20.7 736.9 213.666 599.7 25.4 20.9 835.7 174.412 294.1 828.3l: Estimated emissions (kg) arising from the production.6 37.5 33.9 2.3 3.3 236.4 569.3 832.9 11.9 750.3 7.7 10.0 359.059 648.943 457.2 23.074.3 59.7 687.6 18.3.0 18.7 824.5 1.9 3.5 1.321.0 8.0 22.3 633.678 40. disposal and operating costs of a diesel hybrid midibus under the “express” use scenario Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions Diesel hybrid 511.2 362.1 86 Diesel 674.5 1.8 8.0 557.4 107.943 584.632.2 1.048 485.1 27.1 59.9 310.6 716.5 100.712.934 592.6 29.7 20.154 59.7 215.8 643.0 236.6 23.7 100.599 19.506 52.3.206.513 69.4 1.191.4 9.8 491.059 754.1 39.7 Diesel 578.866.7 737.791 19.2 Table 2.6 15.8 226.9 1.3 2.889.4 3.4 17.873.0 2.2 13.5 966.3 2.452 11.8 22.2 2.3 725. disposal and operating costs of a diesel hybrid midibus under the “inter-urban” use scenario Emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO2 Production & recycling/disposal: CO2 Total CO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: CO In-use fuel cycle emissions: CO Production & recycling/disposal: CO Total CO emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: hydrocarbons In-use fuel cycle emissions: hydrocarbons Production & recycling/disposal: hydrocarbons Total hydrocarbons emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: NOx In-use fuel cycle emissions: NOx Production & recycling/disposal: NOx Total NOx emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: SO2 In-use fuel cycle emissions: SO2 Production & recycling/disposal: SO2 Total SO2 emissions In-use tailpipe emissions: PM In-use fuel cycle emissions: PM Production & recycling/disposal: PM Total PM emissions Diesel hybrid 396.6 .7 441.3 274.3k: Estimated emissions (kg) arising from the production.

619 € 82.306 10.835 7.000 25% 80% High use 5 15.780 €801.609 52.2.500 25% 80% Low use 15 8.2.305 345 Estimated cost of owning and operating a battery electric full size/midi.391 € 8.5b.000 30% 60% Urban 10 30.842 24.499 € 60.392 17.815 6.bus Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas % of time battery is charged over-night Financial costs: Capital cost (after discount and including resale) Running costs (non-energy ie tax + maintenance) Running costs (energy) Total cost (over ownership period) Increased cost compared to diesel bus Cost per tonne of CO2 saved Table 2.112 €160.757 288 42.804 € 30.5d: Average use 10 14.5a.310 647 Table 2.173 €109.349 3.000 40% 60% Low Use 15 12.Appendix 3 – Capital and operating costs Table 2.2.021 € 855 € € € € € € 87 64.854 610 35.833 87.619 €121.113 40.619 € 45.000 40% 60% High use 5 25.000 40% 20% Mixed 10 40.498 € 9.206 €108.605 48. Estimated cost of owning and operating a battery electric car Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas % of time battery is charged over-night Financial costs: Capital cost (after discount and including resale) Running costs (non-energy ie tax + maintenance) Running costs (energy) Total cost (over ownership period) Increased cost compared to petrol car Cost per tonne of CO2 saved Average use 10 10.437 3.845 € 24.608 € 11.740 10.000 25% 60% € € € € € € € € € € € € € 40.804 68.000 90% 30% Inter-urban 10 50.424 € 797 € 70.075 6.358 3.720 € 253 €413.596 26.260 8.539 €265.000 60% 25% €307.217 € 256 Estimated cost of owning and operating a battery electric mini bus Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas % of time battery is charged over-night Financial costs: Capital cost (after discount and including resale) Running costs (non-energy ie tax + maintenance) Running costs (energy) Total cost (over ownership period) Increased cost compared to diesel bus Cost per tonne of CO2 saved Average 10 17.827 € 33.285 7.694 13.812 €102.928 14.781 905 .2.5c: Low use 15 9.911 13.712 €265.000 40% 60% High Use 5 25.351 € 249 €388.000 25% 80% € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € 34.174 € 214 42.542 7.353 € 8.324 €139. Estimated cost of owning and operating a battery electric van Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas % of time battery is charged over-night Financial costs: Capital cost (after discount and including resale) Running costs (non-energy ie tax + maintenance) Running costs (energy) Total cost (over ownership period) Increased cost compared to petrol van Cost per tonne of CO2 saved Table 2.184 €265.301 € 31.047 €618.219 656 30.521 €736.475 73.565 18.000 40% 60% € 69.147 € 8.

619 1.3.696 158 25.500 40% 80% Low use 15 8.569 1.259 6.045 € 1.888 12.032 € 180 € 21.392 4.553 € 1.409 € 7.3.825 € 850 € 206 Table 2.670 14.132 € 33.528 203 26.925 € 4.129 6.211 11.078 € 8.570 114 24.4d Estimated cost of owning and operating a diesel hybrid electric van Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas % of time battery is charged over-night Financial costs: Capital cost (after discount and including resale) Running costs (non-energy ie tax + maintenance) Running costs (energy) Total cost (over ownership period) Increased cost compared to petrol van Cost per tonne of CO2 saved Average use 10 14.545 € 44.000 30% 60% Low use 15 9.528 € 1.301 € 896 € 166 € 25.583 1.211 17.584 € 41.078 € 43.473 54.883 € 240 € 23.640 € 225 € 27.762 € 6.777 € 34.000 30% 60% Low use 15 9.000 40% 60% High use 5 25.780 € 10.3.000 40% 60% High use 5 25.195 262 .888 19.379 11.992 53.768 € 7.917 49.078 € 6.000 40% 80% € 26.3.000 25% 80% € 24.000 25% 80% High use 5 15.403 € 1.000 25% 60% € € € € -€ -€ € € € € -€ -€ € € € € -€ -€ 88 26.705 143 Table 2.4c: Estimated cost of owning and operating a petrol hybrid electric van Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas % of time battery is charged over-night Financial costs: Capital cost (after discount and including resale) Running costs (non-energy ie tax + maintenance) Running costs (energy) Total cost (over ownership period) Increased cost compared to petrol van Cost per tonne of CO2 saved Average use 10 14.396 € 10.4b: Estimated cost of owning and operating a diesel hybrid electric car Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas % of time battery is charged over-night Financial costs: Capital cost (after discount and including resale) Running costs (non-energy ie tax + maintenance) Running costs (energy) Total cost (over ownership period) Increased cost compared to petrol car Cost per tonne of CO2 saved Average use 10 10.279 6.768 € 5.472 49.000 25% 60% € € € € -€ -€ € € € € -€ -€ € € € € -€ -€ 24.000 40% 80% High use 5 15.4a: Estimated cost of owning and operating a petrol hybrid electric car Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas % of time battery is charged over-night Financial costs: Capital cost (after discount and including resale) Running costs (non-energy ie tax + maintenance) Running costs (energy) Total cost (over ownership period) Increased cost compared to petrol car Cost per tonne of CO2 saved Average use 10 10.519 94 23.539 14.762 € 8.497 11.626 5.700 € 7.557 15.500 25% 80% Low use 15 8.982 € 4.165 51.Hybrids Table 2.131 € 40.552 € 284 Table 2.557 10.962 45.

370 €124.521 18.069 €201.000 60% 25% €270.370 € 84.566 64.253 4.3.370 €160.264 € 367 €363.447 310 40.634 12.457 11.bus Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas % of time battery is charged over-night Financial costs: Capital cost (after discount and including resale) Running costs (non-energy ie tax + maintenance) Running costs (energy) Total cost (over ownership period) Increased cost compared to diesel bus Cost per tonne of CO2 saved Table 5-1: Urban 10 30.000 40% 60% Low Use 15 12.208 € 253 €341.428 €666.421 € 494 Estimated cost of owning and operating a hybrid diesel mini bus Assumption: Ownership period (years) Annual vehicle mileage % of driving in city areas % of time battery is charged over-night Financial costs: Capital cost (after discount and including resale) Running costs (non-energy ie tax + maintenance) Running costs (energy) Total cost (over ownership period) Increased cost compared to diesel bus Cost per tonne of CO2 saved Average 10 17.Table 2.863 351 .063 € 46.814 81.973 13.000 40% 60% High Use 5 25.499 €201.212 €201.000 40% 60% € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € 89 43.316 € 84.405 4.000 40% 20% Express 10 40.805 24.679 3.447 €725.4e: Estimated cost of owning and operating a hybrid diesel full size/midi.024 280 43.912 76.000 90% 30% Inter-urban 10 50.867 € 70.656 12.480 €556.

5. and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. Regenerative Braking – Technology that allows energy that would otherwise be wasted as heat during braking to be recycled back into the electrical storage system. Torque – force causing a rotation. The gas prevents the normal transport of oxygen by the blood. odourless and poisonous gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fuel. Midibuses are often designed to be light weight to save on fuel (eg. PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks. certain people are especially vulnerable to PM10’s adverse health effects. driveshafts. Even moderate concentrations may result in a fall in lung function in asthmatics. This can lead to a significant reduction in the supply of oxygen to the heart. Carbon dioxide (CO2) – A gas that is present in a low concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere and is essential for life. Tightness in the chest and coughing may occur at higher concentrations.g. smaller wheels than on larger buses). Particulate Matter (PM) . acid rain. climate change and toxic chemicals. nitric acid. Powertrain – Also referred to as ‘drivetrain’. particularly in people suffering from heart disease.Consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air. cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases. often referred to as PM10 and PM2. It is predominately produced by road transport and in particular petrol vehicles. with seating capacities between 20 to 40 people.Appendix 4 – Glossary of terms Battery instability – this is a measure of how many charges the battery can take before a cell goes bad. Midibus . but are then less durable than full size busses. These “sensitive populations” include children. The rate will depend on the cell chemistry and the temperature. Although particulate matter can cause health problems for everyone.. Of greatest concern to public health are the particles small enough to be inhaled into the deepest parts of the lung. nitrous oxide. HC combines with NOX to produce ozone. 90 . including nitrogen dioxide. This can vary quite a bit depending on the chemical make up of the battery. Sulphur dioxide (SO2) – is produced when fuel containing sulphur is burned. including the engine. transmission. and nitric oxide. ‘particulate matter’. Self-discharge – this is a measure of the rate of how a cell will loose its energy while sitting on the shelf due to unwanted chemical reactions within the cell. Nitrogen oxide (NOX) . and those suffering from asthma or bronchitis. exercising adults. including the creation of ground level ozone (smog). nitrates. In excessive quantities however. the elderly. this is the group of components that generate power and deliver it to the road surface. water quality deterioration. Hydrocarbons (HC) – Various compounds of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Although they can be emitted into the air by natural sources (e. They can cause a wide variety of health and environmental impacts. trees). Carbon monoxide (CO) – is a colourless. differentials. It therefore does not have a direct impact on human health. this gas can have a major impact on climate. Sulphur dioxide is considered more harmful when particulate and other pollution concentrations are high. and the final drive. a toxic gas that is a major component of smog.a classification of single decker buses which are in size between minibuses and full size buses.General term applied to a variety of compounds. the combustion of fuel is currently the biggest contributor.

ie .Hybrid Electric and Battery Electric Vehicles Technology.sei.ie www. C Hybrid Electric and Battery Vehicles Sustainable Energy Ireland Glasnevin Dublin 9 Ireland t f e w + 353 1 836 9080 + 353 1 837 2848 info@sei.